PDA

View Full Version : Fort Hood Massacre vs Luby's Cafe.


nicki
11-09-2009, 3:12 PM
The Fort Hood massacre was like Luby's cafe, a lone gun man in a "Victim Disarmament Zone" (VDZ). Texas responded to the Lubby's massacre by passing a "Shall Issue" CCW law.

These "Gun Free Zones" only restrict potential "Victims", hence since they don't disarm potential attackers, they are in fact, not "Gun Free".

The fact is a "Terrorist action" like this one wil rack up a sky high body count until someone shoots the terrorist.

Sure there are some areas that one could argue should be "Gun Free", but there is a difference from a "Gun Free" and a "Victim disarmament" Zone.

Perhaps this event will help narrow what the courts would allow for "Sensitive Zones". Perhaps something along the line that there is a compelling public interest that the general public waives their right of armed defense and that the zone also makes a reasonable effort through things like metal detectors and providing armed security as a backup so that people who enter such zones are not sitting ducks.

This would limit zones effectively to places like court houses, airports and venues such as concerts, sporting events, etc.

This "Traitor" obviously was willing to die and take many people with him.

My heart goes out to the victims and their families, that being said, perhaps we can get something good out of this tragedy.

In the coming weeks, details of the shooting will become public. As those details come out, it wil give us "ammo" to move forward on gun rights.

What I have noticed is the media coverage on this shooting is far less than previous mass shootings, I remember the coverage on the Stockton and Collumbine massacres, but those were schools.

The gun grabbers say only police and military should have guns. Granted, he probably bought the gun off post since a FN is not a standard military pistol, but if we had a gun ban, he probably could have gotten access to military guns and ammo on post if he had too.

This is not an issue that will go away, many people in the military come from the "free states" and I bet many parents of active duty people are pissed off.

They expect attacks in foreign lands, but not stateside by officers.

The War on Terror is now going to be fought on our home soil. I expect that we will see more of these type attacks, especially in areas that are "VD" Zones, since one can rack up a sky high body count.

Nicki

Untamed1972
11-09-2009, 3:16 PM
Pretty bad that our service members can move about armed to teeth over seas and come home safely and then not be trusted to carry a weapon on their own home soil only to die at the hands of a traitorous jihadist.


Something is seriously wrong with that picture.

Purple K
11-09-2009, 3:18 PM
Very nicely written.

Southwest Chuck
11-09-2009, 3:51 PM
Very nicely written.

x's 2



I agree 100%

Mike d'Ocla
11-09-2009, 4:28 PM
The Fort Hood massacre was like Lubby's cafe, a lone gun man in a "Victim Disarmament Zone" (VDZ). Texas responded to the Lubby's massacre by passing a "Shall Issue" CCW law...
The fact is a "Terrorist action" like this one wil rack up a sky high body count until someone shoots the terrorist.

The War on Terror is now going to be fought on our home soil. I expect that we will see more of these type attacks, especially in areas that are "VD" Zones, since one can rack up a sky high body count.
Nicki

There is a simpler and more useful explanation for the Ft. Hood shootings than Islamic terror.

PTSD is what happens to some people when their nervous systems are in what amounts to an emotional train wreck. Imagine what happens to a person's body when that body is run over by a fast-moving train. If that person survives, he or she will never be physically entirely whole again. A person with PTSD never becomes emotionally whole again.

Lots of Iraq War vets have gotten PTSD after one tour, two tours, three tours, even four tours. 121 of these vets with PTSD have committed murders after coming home. None of them before becoming vets had any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. Or religious fanaticism for that matter.

Other people get PTSD indirectly. Like the spouses of Iraq War vets or the people who help treat the vets' PTSD or other people who help treat all sorts of PTSD cases day after day. Hearing endless horror stories, or experiencing an abundance of horror yourself, can definitely frazzle you. Permanently.

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

A last note: the idea of "Islamic terrorism" isn't very useful. Islamic fanatics are as much at war with one another as they are with the coalition troopers in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are among the Islamic sects Sunnis and Shia. Some of them hate one another and work very hard at killing one another. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? That time we were on the Sunni or Iraqi side because we distrusted the Shia or Iranian side. After we deposed Saddam, we kicked the Sunnis out of government and fostered the Shia. Remember the talk about whether there was a civil war in Iraq? That was all about the Shia fanatics killing the Sunni fanatics and vice-versa.

I could go on, but mere facts don't seem to get much attention here. It's much easier to get all wound-up about a fantasy.

dwa
11-09-2009, 4:51 PM
There is a simpler and more useful explanation for the Ft. Hood shootings than Islamic terror.

PTSD is what happens to some people when their nervous systems are in what amounts to an emotional train wreck. Imagine what happens to a person's body when that body is run over by a fast-moving train. If that person survives, he or she will never be physically entirely whole again. A person with PTSD never becomes emotionally whole again.

Lots of Iraq War vets have gotten PTSD after one tour, two tours, three tours, even four tours. 121 of these vets with PTSD have committed murders after coming home. None of them before becoming vets had any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. Or religious fanaticism for that matter.

Other people get PTSD indirectly. Like the spouses of Iraq War vets or the people who help treat the vets' PTSD or other people who help treat all sorts of PTSD cases day after day. Hearing endless horror stories, or experiencing an abundance of horror yourself, can definitely frazzle you. Permanently.

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

A last note: the idea of "Islamic terrorism" isn't very useful. Islamic fanatics are as much at war with one another as they are with the coalition troopers in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are among the Islamic sects Sunnis and Shia. Some of them hate one another and work very hard at killing one another. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? That time we were on the Sunni or Iraqi side because we distrusted the Shia or Iranian side. After we deposed Saddam, we kicked the Sunnis out of government and fostered the Shia. Remember the talk about whether there was a civil war in Iraq? That was all about the Shia fanatics killing the Sunni fanatics and vice-versa.

I could go on, but mere facts don't seem to get much attention here. It's much easier to get all wound-up about a fantasy.

umm I'm gonna call BS on your whole spiel. the man talked about the moral equivalency of a suicide bomber and a soldier jumping on a grenade this is a pretty cut and dry case.

Secondly it doesn't sound like you know very much about PTSD, and you've started to "frazzle" me

Finally once i get into your ideas on Islamic fundamentalism i see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Iran Iraq war was a Secular Iraq under a Baathist regime attempting to take advantage of weakness in the now theocratic Iran as they had just gone through a change in power. That time we weren't on the Sunni side we helped the enemy of our enemy. who we aided in that conflict had little to do with religion and everything to do with geopolitics. you should read about pan Arab nationalism and the Muslim brotherhood. understanding those two groups will set you well on your way of understanding the underlying causes of Islamic expansionism.

yellowfin
11-09-2009, 5:04 PM
To add to that, the guilty party was never a combat soldier IIRC, so PTSD is out the window. Even if it wasn't, WW1, WW2, and Korean war vets didn't shoot up bases afterwards, so the guy has no excuse.


Even further beyond excuse are the pathetic pukes who made the policy disarming all the victims in this. They're just as guilty as the guy who did the shooting. The fact that it happened in Killeen makes it all the more inexcusable- apparently the Luby's incident taught them absolutely nothing, and as such makes them incompetent and unfit for decision making.

Mstrty
11-09-2009, 5:11 PM
umm I'm gonna call BS on your whole spiel. the man talked about the moral equivalency of a suicide bomber and a soldier jumping on a grenade this is a pretty cut and dry case.

Secondly it doesn't sound like you know very much about PTSD, and you've started to "frazzle" me

Finally once i get into your ideas on Islamic fundamentalism i see you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The Iran Iraq war was a Secular Iraq under a Baathist regime attempting to take advantage of weakness in the now theocratic Iran as they had just gone through a change in power. That time we weren't on the Sunni side we helped the enemy of our enemy. who we aided in that conflict had little to do with religion and everything to do with geopolitics. you should read about pan Arab nationalism and the Muslim brotherhood. understanding those two groups will set you well on your way of understanding the underlying causes of Islamic expansionism.
dwa:
I got your back +1
PTSD my A** these guys are nut jobs looking for a little hand out.
disclosure; I have never experianced combat myself so I might be the nutjob:eek:

wash
11-09-2009, 5:14 PM
I'm not sure you can entirely discount PTSD.

This guy had to listen to returning soldiers that probably had some pretty horrifying stories about the war and killing Muslims.

I don't think that excuses anything but I probably wouldn't want to hear those stories.

bodger
11-09-2009, 5:22 PM
I'm not sure you can entirely discount PTSD.

This guy had to listen to returning soldiers that probably had some pretty horrifying stories about the war and killing Muslims.

I don't think that excuses anything but I probably wouldn't want to hear those stories.


I wouldn't want to hear those stories either.
I'd rather not have some first-hand memories that I have as well. Lucky for me, I haven't ever had the urge to go hurt anyone.

But I don't buy the concept that this perpetrator did what he did because of second-hand PTSD.

Fate
11-09-2009, 5:25 PM
To OP: Having eaten there a bunch of times while growing up in Tx...

It's LUBY's (not Lubby's) ;)

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

Hmm...maybe that sheds some light on what I experience monthly. "Secondary PMS."

wash
11-09-2009, 5:31 PM
So many people seemingly fail to understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse.

There are plenty of inexcusable things that have explanations.

I'm not saying that listening to those kinds of stories gives a person a free pass to open fire, just that it might be very disturbing.

Nose Nuggets
11-09-2009, 5:48 PM
only to die at the hands of a traitorous jihadist.


Really? the fact that he is Muslim makes any damn difference?

nick
11-09-2009, 5:59 PM
Really? the fact that he is Muslim makes any damn difference?

Of course. It was the major part of his motive for this crime. Just like being a gang member matters in a drive-by shooting.

M. Sage
11-09-2009, 6:13 PM
The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

You're right. The facts don't seem to be getting much attention.

Like the fact that this guy said he was a "Muslim first and American second". And the fact that this guy said that suicide bombers were equivalent to guys who jump on a grenade to save their buddies.

The fact that all this and more add up to tell us that this guy didn't have PTSD. He had Jihad.

Face the facts. Only the truth can set you free.

bodger
11-09-2009, 6:14 PM
So many people seemingly fail to understand the difference between an explanation and an excuse.

There are plenty of inexcusable things that have explanations.

I'm not saying that listening to those kinds of stories gives a person a free pass to open fire, just that it might be very disturbing.


I think we could accurately call this guy insane, and whatever drove him to be insane is the reason he did what he did.

And that explains it I suppose. Obviously there are people who listen to and council PTSD sufferers all day everyday and it doesn't send them over the edge, while it could be possible that another person gets lit up by it themselves and does something crazy.

But with this guy, yelling Allah Akbar or whatever it was before he started his rampage...that makes this a Muslim suicide mission by his own declaration as far as I'm concerned.

M. Sage
11-09-2009, 6:21 PM
But with this guy, yelling Allah Akbar or whatever it was before he started his rampage...that makes this a Muslim suicide mission by his own declaration as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly. And there are so many other red flags waving in this guy's past, it's hard to come away with any other conclusion.

If the soldiers killed and wounded don't get purple hearts for what happened, I'll be pissed.

a1scoot
11-09-2009, 6:32 PM
I hope that this tragedy brings some serious change to our "PC' policy that
so many tards in this nation seem to cling to.
Time to call a spade a spade.
a1scoot

dustoff31
11-09-2009, 6:33 PM
The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

Horsecrap.



PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

So what was the cause of "Soldier's Heart" in the Civil War? "Shellshock" in WW I ?, "Combat Fatigue" in WW II and Korea? Were they too were fighting an endless war with no clear purpose?


PTSD has been around forever, it has just been called different things at different times. Some people are afflicted with it. Many others just like to whine and snivel.

I'll attribute your remarks to ignorance, rather than an active attempt to trivialize those who truly do suffer from PTSD, and to label everyone even remotely connected with the military as having a mental illness.

Carnivore
11-09-2009, 6:53 PM
I just don't get the idea that PTSD can happen when you have not been in TRAUMATIC STRESS an then to turn around an say you can't handle the damage that happens to others over there but then CAUSE that damage HERE. I don't see that as the explanation for this but an excuse to possible get away with it as "I AM CRAZY so hold till I feel better". More "I ate to many Twinky's so I had to kill my family". BS to bad he lived as I doubt they will execute him even in Texas.

7x57
11-09-2009, 7:13 PM
There may well be other indications of insanity in our jihadist's past. But it makes no sense to call his actions "insane" unless not agreeing with us is "insane." He did something rational according to a certain set of beliefs which he clearly held, and he did so according to a preconceived plan and not a whim. (We know it was preplanned: the best way to predict an act of specifically Islamic terrorism appears to be a devout Muslim man visiting strip clubs, prostitutes, and the like, indicating that he has chosen the martyr's salvation and the martyr's reward.)

I suppose the postmodern mind calls anything non-postmodern insane, but those who understand ideas and their consequences should not do this. Ideas have consequences. Not all religions are equal. Not all religions have "the same message" (an idea so insane it took nineteenth century European liberals to invent it). It is only those who no longer understand ideas that think such things.

7x57

Seesm
11-09-2009, 8:04 PM
OP nice writing... We need MORE well informed armed citizens...

If there were more armed people in both of these cases there very well may have been LESS casualties... RIP all that died...

jmlivingston
11-09-2009, 8:23 PM
Was listening to John & Ken on KFI while driving home tonight, apparently Hasan was in touch with one of the same radical imam's that 2 of the 9/11 terrorists were associated with.

Yeah, this nutcase was definitely a "secondary ptsd" victim.... :rolleyes:

He's just another flippin' terrorist.

bodger
11-09-2009, 8:54 PM
I saw on the news tonight that he was awake and talking. And it looks like he will be tried by the military, not a civilian court.

The military hasn't caried out the death penalty against anyone in a long time.

I hope this skell will be the one that ends that hiatus.

CABilly
11-09-2009, 9:12 PM
I've heard the way some returning vets talk about their experiences and their opinions on the people who inhabit the countries they were deployed to. I wonder if hearing their points of view and personal feelings, in a psychiatric setting with, I'm assuming, a higher level of candor, might have shaped his opinion on the war and its mission.

I think he deserves to be hanged for his actions, but it just doesn't look like he joined the military with jihad in mind.

yellowfin
11-09-2009, 9:34 PM
Perhaps we should make him lay on a grenade so he can make an accurate assessment of how well it fits his mission.

Invicta
11-09-2009, 9:50 PM
The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD." .

Based on what?

That is laughable. Maybe we should diagnose him Pre-PTSD... after all he was about to be deployed to war as a psychiatrist so that has to be as bad being the soldier blowing people's heads off and getting your buddies guts blown all over your face from an IED or RPG. Gimmie a break.



The guy was very likely an Islamic extremist who interpreted the Koran the exact same way a bunch of other Islamic extremists do and decided to kill the "aggressors".

This is based on all the evidence currently available. Not some tripe about "Secondary PTSD".

By the way, my Dad has PTSD from his combat in Vietnam so I know a little something about it.

nicki
11-10-2009, 4:19 AM
I believe this 'traitor" must recieve a swift trial and the prosecutor should just go for what he can get convictions on quickly rather than drag this thing out.

I far as I am concerned the guy is guilty of not only multiple murders, but treason as well. The men and women of the military deserve swift action on this, otherwise it jeopardizes unit cohesiveness.

Military personal may not like each other, but they did watch each other's backs. If the troops can't trust each other, military discipline will fall apart.

I think though that his crimes are so horrible that we should have a special lottery with funds raised spent on the victims and their famlies.

The Special lottery I would propose would be that a "winner or anyone they delegate gets a all expense paid trip to TEXAS and they get to participate in the FIRING SQUAD.

Since this would probably have high demand, I propose we have 100 winners to supplement the normal number of members of the firing squad.

Winners of course would have the option of using a military supplied gun or bringing their own for a personal touch.

Now, while the miltary shooters would be limited to one shot because they are experts, the lottery winners would be allowed to take as many shots as they coud in 10 seconds.

This is so that winners would be sure that they got at least one hit.

Now, I realize that there probably wouldn't be much left of his body after this and it would probably mean that he would have to have a closed coffin burial.



I say so what.

Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
11-10-2009, 7:16 AM
The Special lottery I would propose would be that a "winner or anyone they delegate gets a all expense paid trip to TEXAS and they get to participate in the FIRING SQUAD.

Nicki


How does the US military carry out the Ultimate Sanction nowadays? Is it the firing squad, or do they still hang 'em?

The Raisuli

.454
11-10-2009, 8:08 AM
There is a simpler and more useful explanation for the Ft. Hood shootings than Islamic terror.

PTSD is what happens to some people when their nervous systems are in what amounts to an emotional train wreck. Imagine what happens to a person's body when that body is run over by a fast-moving train. If that person survives, he or she will never be physically entirely whole again. A person with PTSD never becomes emotionally whole again.

Lots of Iraq War vets have gotten PTSD after one tour, two tours, three tours, even four tours. 121 of these vets with PTSD have committed murders after coming home. None of them before becoming vets had any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. Or religious fanaticism for that matter.

Other people get PTSD indirectly. Like the spouses of Iraq War vets or the people who help treat the vets' PTSD or other people who help treat all sorts of PTSD cases day after day. Hearing endless horror stories, or experiencing an abundance of horror yourself, can definitely frazzle you. Permanently.

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

A last note: the idea of "Islamic terrorism" isn't very useful. Islamic fanatics are as much at war with one another as they are with the coalition troopers in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are among the Islamic sects Sunnis and Shia. Some of them hate one another and work very hard at killing one another. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? That time we were on the Sunni or Iraqi side because we distrusted the Shia or Iranian side. After we deposed Saddam, we kicked the Sunnis out of government and fostered the Shia. Remember the talk about whether there was a civil war in Iraq? That was all about the Shia fanatics killing the Sunni fanatics and vice-versa.

I could go on, but mere facts don't seem to get much attention here. It's much easier to get all wound-up about a fantasy.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/336829/2/istockphoto_336829_bullsh_t.jpg

Take a look at this, Mike d'Ocla:

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during gave a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.
Here is the notebook with Hasan dissertation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html?sid=ST2009110903704

PTSD my arse.
"It's not Hasan's fault, he is just a victim of an unjust war"
Liberals blaming America for Islamic terrorists attacks are just as despicable as the terrorists themselves.

rjf
11-10-2009, 8:12 AM
I believe all Military bases are gun free zones with exceptions for base housing. They don't check at the gates so anyone with access can kill a bunch of unarmed folks if they need a jihad fix.

The DoD needs to allow CCW on base, even if the state doesn't allow CCW.

The Ft Hood killer needs to be put on a strict diet of pork rinds and bacon with one cup of water a day.

The Director
11-10-2009, 8:31 AM
Man, I'm getting tertiary PTSD just reading about secondary PTSD!

.454
11-10-2009, 8:41 AM
Man, I'm getting tertiary PTSD just reading about secondary PTSD!

Here is something to cheer you up:

Despite ban, Obama's AG Eric Holder to speak to CAIR-linked group (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Despite_ban_Holder_to_speak_to_CAIRlinked_group.ht ml)

Just in case you didn't know: CAIR was named un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing. They are the front group of the Muslim Brotherhood in America (Al- Quaeda itself is an off-shot of M.B); their leadership has many ties to the worst terrorists the world has ever known, several of this organization founders have been tried and sentenced for supporting terrorism, some of them are in prison, others are on the run from justice hiding in Muslim countries. CAIR openly support Hamas and...AG Holder is a keynote speaker at a dinner affiliated with CAIR!!!

Mike d'Ocla
11-10-2009, 9:55 AM
To those who I'm quite sure have misread what I wrote about Hasan and PTSD:

I didn't say anything about "insanity." "Insanity" is not a psychological or psychiatric definition of anything. It is an idea which has a legal definition which is used by courts of law to assess criminal responsibility. Big difference. Confusing important ideas is not useful.

Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?

How many of you are lawyers with expertise in capital cases, especially with regard to "insanity" defenses?

How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.

How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

The purpose of making an effort to distinguish fact from fantasy is to be able to act and to plan effectively for preventing problems in the future. If you rely on fantasy, you can't solve problems. Anyone here ever run a business? (I doubt it!). How far did your fantasies about your success get you?

Another fantasy is that incidents like the Ft. Hood massacre can be avoided by allowing everyone to carry a weapon at all times. It's much more complicated than that. Some people are good shooters under stress. Some people, even experienced military and law-enforcement, are not very good shooters under stress. Some well-intended people will kill all sorts of bystanders because of they can't handle a weapon well under stress.

I wonder how many of you who are so certain about the benefits of universal arming of people are in positions of responsibility for others? Any CEOs out there? Any military officers or noncoms? Any SWAT or FBI-trained people? I don't think so. Please come forth and speak if you really can distinguish fact from fantasy. Anyone ever read Massad Ayoob about the realities of shootings?

All that said, I am indeed in favor of some people being able to carry whenever appropriate. But those people need to have a good reason, be of good character and have demonstrated some understanding of the responsibilities and consequences of shooting. I don't think that people who are full of fantasies about their knowledge of the world, full of fantasies about their ability to judge others, full of fantastic hatred of other people that they imagine are evil because they are different, can be good candidates for carrying weapons, ever.

These fantasies about the way the world works and the uses and consequences of carrying weapons are the best kind of ammo for the anti-gun activists. Keep up the fantasizing and you will do everlasting damage to rational people who want to preserve 2nd Amendment rights.

Maestro Pistolero
11-10-2009, 10:00 AM
Nothing so clearly demonstrates the futility, and immorality of gun control as well as an incident like this. The utter failure of absolute gun control is perfectly modeled here in the microcosm of the Ft Hood military post.

All that expensive training, all the background checks, and all those weapons and ammunition locked up in the armory. Why in the hell can't 1 of 5 or 10 soldiers be designated to carry at all times, in the interest of military base security?

The Director
11-10-2009, 10:04 AM
To those who I think have misread what I wrote about Hasan and PTSD:

I didn't say anything about "insanity." "Insanity" is not a psychological or psychiatric definition of anything. It is an idea which has a legal definition which is used by courts of law to assess criminal responsibility. Big difference. Confusing important ideas is not useful.

Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?

How many of you are lawyers with expertise in capital cases, especially with regard to "insanity" defenses?

How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.

How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

Come on. I'm practically a doctor.:D

Mike d'Ocla
11-10-2009, 10:48 AM
Come on. I'm practically a doctor.:D

And you are way ahead of the rest of us in not taking yourself so seriously. Thanks for the reminder!

HUTCH 7.62
11-10-2009, 10:54 AM
I think Jihad in America thing is gonna get worse before the Govt. does anything about this crap. The Bush admin is starting to not look so bad huh.

SgtDinosaur
11-10-2009, 11:12 AM
Let the federal tap dancing around the politically incorrect subject of Moslem extremists here in the U.S. begin.

.454
11-10-2009, 11:30 AM
To those who I'm quite sure have misread what I wrote about Hasan and PTSD:

I didn't say anything about "insanity." "Insanity" is not a psychological or psychiatric definition of anything. It is an idea which has a legal definition which is used by courts of law to assess criminal responsibility. Big difference. Confusing important ideas is not useful.

Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?

How many of you are lawyers with expertise in capital cases, especially with regard to "insanity" defenses?

Dr. Phil...is is you? Do you mind if I ask you to PM me copies of your credentials?

How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.

There you go, folks: America's fault.
Never mind the 1,400 year long history of Islamic jihad, hundreds of wars of conquest against infidels and the final goal of establishing a world-wide Caliphate; that's not a factor. Nope. :rolleyes:

How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

Actually, we have a bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets here on Calguns. They are guys who (unlike Hasan who was never deployed) actually went to the sandbox and participated in combat. Never heard of any of them to go Jihadi on their brothers in arms.
I am myself a veteran, although I didn't served in the American military but in a former communist army. I also participated in the Romanian revolution in 1989 where over 2000 of my countrymen were killed in less than 2 weeks of street combat. I've seen plenty of crap, death and blood myself but that's not a reason for me to go on a shooting rampage shouting Allah-U-Ahkbar and murder scores of my comrades.

The purpose of making an effort to distinguish fact from fantasy is to be able to act and to plan effectively for preventing problems in the future. If you rely on fantasy, you can't solve problems. Anyone here ever run a business? (I doubt it!). How far did your fantasies about your success get you?

For a guy with 44 posts and 3 months of Calguns membership, you assume lots of things you don't know about other members.
Actually yes, I do actually run my own business. To be more exact, I run two businesses.
Out of the six Calgunners I had the pleasure to meet in the past year doing business with or just shooting, three are also business owners like me. So I can only guess a sizable number of Calgunners are either self employed of business owners.

Another fantasy is that incidents like the Ft. Hood massacre can be avoided by allowing everyone to carry a weapon at all times. It's much more complicated than that. Some people are good shooters under stress. Some people, even experienced military and law-enforcement, are not very good shooters under stress. Some well-intended people will kill all sorts of bystanders because of they can't handle a weapon well under stress.

I got it, you are one of bright people who believe the Second Amendment only applies to the "chosen ones", the rest of the populace is better off not to have guns. What exactly are you doing on this website again?

I wonder how many of you who are so certain about the benefits of universal arming of people are in positions of responsibility for others? Any CEOs out there? Any military officers or noncoms? Any SWAT or FBI-trained people? I don't think so. Please come forth and speak if you really can distinguish fact from fantasy. Anyone ever read Massad Ayoob about the realities of shootings?

Enlighten me. :rolleyes:

All that said, I am indeed in favor of some people being able to carry whenever appropriate. But those people need to have a good reason, be of good character and have demonstrated some understanding of the responsibilities and consequences of shooting. I don't think that people who are full of fantasies about their knowledge of the world, full of fantasies about their ability to judge others, full of fantastic hatred of other people that they imagine are evil because they are different, can be good candidates for carrying weapons, ever.

Let me guess...you must be one of the few people who is smart enough, can restrain himself and has good judgement enough and has enough of a good reason, right? Damn, you are so awesome pal! The Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment just for you!

These fantasies about the way the world works and the uses and consequences of carrying weapons are the best kind of ammo for the anti-gun activists. Keep up the fantasizing and you will do everlasting damage to rational people who want to preserve 2nd Amendment rights.

I believe you lost your way on the Internet, please allow me to give you directions. The website you are looking for is right here pal: Brady Campaign (http://www.bradycampaign.org/)

Mods, please ban the troll.

Edited: On second thought, don't ban him. He's quite entertaining.

7x57
11-10-2009, 11:39 AM
How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East?

I decline your kind offer to blame the victims. If the usual "hate America first" rhetoric is to follow, I decline that in advance as well.

That said, it's entertaining to watch the left discredit itself in public. Again and again and again....

7x57

.454
11-10-2009, 11:46 AM
I decline your kind offer to blame the victims. If the usual "hate America first" rhetoric is to follow, I decline that in advance as well.

That said, it's entertaining to watch the left discredit itself in public. Again and again and again....

7x57

Damn you, dude.
Everything I wanted to tell the troll but took me half a page, you just managed to express in three short phrases.
I am so jealous.

dfletcher
11-10-2009, 12:07 PM
How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.



No doubt the US took little convincing from the British to overthrow Mossadegh and from what I've read he seems like a fairly middle of the road PM. I don't know that it's accurate to say Iran as a country has been hostile to the US ever since 1953, we did have about 25 good years with the Shah. Of course the Shah helped make current conditions possible.

Obviously the people of Iran at some point became disenchanted with the Shah and the US - at what point I don't know. Whether that was attributed to 1953 alone or the Shah's actions in the 1970s - I tend to think it was an accumulation of events in the 70s, CIA's adventures in 1953 didn't help.

Glock22Fan
11-10-2009, 12:10 PM
To those who I'm quite sure have misread what I wrote about Hasan and PTSD:

I didn't say anything about "insanity." "Insanity" is not a psychological or psychiatric definition of anything. It is an idea which has a legal definition which is used by courts of law to assess criminal responsibility. Big difference. Confusing important ideas is not useful.

Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?

How many of you are lawyers with expertise in capital cases, especially with regard to "insanity" defenses?

How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.

How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.

The purpose of making an effort to distinguish fact from fantasy is to be able to act and to plan effectively for preventing problems in the future. If you rely on fantasy, you can't solve problems. Anyone here ever run a business? (I doubt it!). How far did your fantasies about your success get you?

Another fantasy is that incidents like the Ft. Hood massacre can be avoided by allowing everyone to carry a weapon at all times. It's much more complicated than that. Some people are good shooters under stress. Some people, even experienced military and law-enforcement, are not very good shooters under stress. Some well-intended people will kill all sorts of bystanders because of they can't handle a weapon well under stress.

I wonder how many of you who are so certain about the benefits of universal arming of people are in positions of responsibility for others? Any CEOs out there? Any military officers or noncoms? Any SWAT or FBI-trained people? I don't think so. Please come forth and speak if you really can distinguish fact from fantasy. Anyone ever read Massad Ayoob about the realities of shootings?

All that said, I am indeed in favor of some people being able to carry whenever appropriate. But those people need to have a good reason, be of good character and have demonstrated some understanding of the responsibilities and consequences of shooting. I don't think that people who are full of fantasies about their knowledge of the world, full of fantasies about their ability to judge others, full of fantastic hatred of other people that they imagine are evil because they are different, can be good candidates for carrying weapons, ever.

These fantasies about the way the world works and the uses and consequences of carrying weapons are the best kind of ammo for the anti-gun activists. Keep up the fantasizing and you will do everlasting damage to rational people who want to preserve 2nd Amendment rights.

Wow, I am really impressed that you know all this stuff, in so many different disciplines, whereas the rest of us know nada about anything. Thank you for coming down to earth to demonstrate to us how ignorant we are and how mighty you are.





Not.

Meplat
11-10-2009, 12:42 PM
Where are all the PTSD mass shootings perpetrated by veterans of WWII and Korea? PTSD is a bull **** excuse made up by the anti war people of the Viet Nam era. One of my dearest friends has a bronze star, a silver star, and two purple hearts. I knew him for twenty years before I knew of his decorations and I only found out when his wife told me. Since that time we have had several heart to heart talks around the campfire, just he and I. I know some of the demons he faces every night in his dreams. His wife knows better than to wake him suddenly. But he has never shot anyone.

PTSD as a result of actual combat? Maybe. But a claim that this bozo shot up a bunch of soldiers because he had heard too many war stories is that of a fool or a lier.



There is a simpler and more useful explanation for the Ft. Hood shootings than Islamic terror.

PTSD is what happens to some people when their nervous systems are in what amounts to an emotional train wreck. Imagine what happens to a person's body when that body is run over by a fast-moving train. If that person survives, he or she will never be physically entirely whole again. A person with PTSD never becomes emotionally whole again.

Lots of Iraq War vets have gotten PTSD after one tour, two tours, three tours, even four tours. 121 of these vets with PTSD have committed murders after coming home. None of them before becoming vets had any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. Or religious fanaticism for that matter.

Other people get PTSD indirectly. Like the spouses of Iraq War vets or the people who help treat the vets' PTSD or other people who help treat all sorts of PTSD cases day after day. Hearing endless horror stories, or experiencing an abundance of horror yourself, can definitely frazzle you. Permanently.

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

A last note: the idea of "Islamic terrorism" isn't very useful. Islamic fanatics are as much at war with one another as they are with the coalition troopers in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are among the Islamic sects Sunnis and Shia. Some of them hate one another and work very hard at killing one another. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? That time we were on the Sunni or Iraqi side because we distrusted the Shia or Iranian side. After we deposed Saddam, we kicked the Sunnis out of government and fostered the Shia. Remember the talk about whether there was a civil war in Iraq? That was all about the Shia fanatics killing the Sunni fanatics and vice-versa.

I could go on, but mere facts don't seem to get much attention here. It's much easier to get all wound-up about a fantasy.

capntroy
11-10-2009, 1:01 PM
PTSD as a result of actual combat? Maybe. But a claim that this bozo shot up a bunch of soldiers because he had heard too many war stories is that of a fool or a lier.

If this mooselimb hadn't spouted all of the religious rhetoric that he did before shooting those soldiers, and all we had to go on was this "secondary ptsd" bullsh*t, I'd say this guy had to be the biggest pus*y in the world.

Really, you go on a shooting spree because you've heard too many war stories, not experienced them or lived them, but heard them!!??

But that's all irrelevant, because anyone who can't see that this was another killing sanctioned by the "religion of peace" has his head up his a*s and is only aiding the enemy by his ignorance.

Nose Nuggets
11-10-2009, 1:10 PM
Of course. It was the major part of his motive for this crime. Just like being a gang member matters in a drive-by shooting.

Yes i owe an apology. Its happened too many times in the last 8 years that if someone commits a crime, and they have a Muslim sounding name, people jump on it and say he's a crazy jihadist nutjob blah de blah and it pisses me off. because i know a few really good Americans who happen to be Muslim, and i think its a damn shame that people have a negative view on all Muslims because of a few crazy ones. however, in light of all the information about this particular crack pot who, based on recent information about talks he has given, is one of these crazy Muslims.


Moving on; i dont think the claims of 'secondary ptsd' are completely unfounded. i think labeling it secondary ptsd is stupid but the principle is reasonable. The guy has been listening to peoples war horror stories for years. helping men and women work though the pain, sorrow, and agony of war and then finding out that you yourself are now being deployed to that very place and will soon be subject to the same horrors, i think, is enough to make you snap. does it make his actions okay? of course not. it would be ridiculous to make that claim.

gemini1
11-10-2009, 2:18 PM
PTSD? I dont think I buy this either. My late uncle (he's Filipino) was an army vet in Korea, Vietnam then continued on to serve with the constabulary and was assigned in the southern Philippines to quell the muslim rebellion. He continued on with the service and was even extended service, retiring only after 35 years in service. Till he died of cancer several years after retirement, he never even once displayed any of the PTSD crap that we read from those so called experts. Oh and the good part? I inherited his 1911 service pistol :43:

Nose Nuggets
11-10-2009, 4:10 PM
PTSD? I dont think I buy this either. My late uncle (he's Filipino) was an army vet in Korea, Vietnam then continued on to serve with the constabulary and was assigned in the southern Philippines to quell the muslim rebellion. He continued on with the service and was even extended service, retiring only after 35 years in service. Till he died of cancer several years after retirement, he never even once displayed any of the PTSD crap that we read from those so called experts. Oh and the good part? I inherited his 1911 service pistol :43:

so your saying one mans experience with 35 years of combat negates any possibility of the existence of PTSD? i just want to make sure i understand this correctly. i dont want to say i agree or disagree per se, im just curious if you actually mean what you are implying.

.454
11-10-2009, 5:08 PM
so your saying one mans experience with 35 years of combat negates any possibility of the existence of PTSD? i just want to make sure i understand this correctly. i dont want to say i agree or disagree per se, im just curious if you actually mean what you are implying.


Hey, time to wake up and smell the coffee pal. Hasan had priors:
-he openly declared in several occasions he supports suicide bombings and killing of infidels.
-He corresponded in dozens of emails with an Al-Quaeda operative; the man is a former Imam at the mosque where Hasan worships, he is a fugitive from the law and he is hiding abroad.

Yet, you still manage somehow to discount all this IN YOUR FACE EVIDENCE pointing to a domestic act of Islamic terrorism and claim the poor murderer is just an innocent victim who "snapped".

PTSD? Really? You know what? I believe you've seen way too many Rambo movies.
Dude, I'll be frank with you: you are insulting my intelligence, you are insulting the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of military veterans and you piss you on the graves of the victims, all three in the same time.
You know, if you really think what Hasan did is not his fault and he's just a poor guy who didn't premeditated this act of terror, maybe you should submit an application with the DOJ and adopt him. Just take him home and care for him.

The Director
11-10-2009, 5:24 PM
PTSD is bull****. Secondary PTSD is even dumber.

My grandfather fought for three years along side the Afrika Korps in North Africa and spent two years as a POW in Louisiana picking cotton.

I heard his stories for decades, and I even made a feature length documentary about it. He didn't have any sort of PTSD and I sure as hell don't have any secondary PTSD from hearing the stories, many of which are not fit for a public forum.

bodger
11-10-2009, 5:40 PM
Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?

How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.



Not a fantasy for me. For the past several years I have attended a weekly group meeting at the Wadsworth VA Center in West Los Angeles with other Vietnam vets addressing the issue of my own PTSD. My service was in Southeast Asia in 1972-73, so the "post" was pretty well festered. it used to be called "DSS" for Delayed Stress Syndrome.

September 12, 2001, I called my local Air Force reserve office and volunteered to re-enlist and take a tour to wherever we were going to strike first.

I run a successful, albeit small, construction company.

If you doubt anyone on this forum has ever run a successful business as you stated, you aren't reading or comprehending much here.

"The Fort Hood shooter very likely had what is called secondary PTSD"

And you base your diagnosis on...what? Your own first-hand knowledge of the disorder? Are you a professional practicioner in the mental health field?

"PTSD is a problem the military doesn't like having to deal with"

And you base that opinion on what? Suspecting you have the disorder and seeking treatment at a military health facility whilst on active duty?

Or going to the VA with your DD 214 and receiving psychiatric evaluation? Which consists of a review of the dates of the traumatic experience(s) and an isolation of the main trigger event. Then assignment to a group therapy setting, as this has been found by both the military and the VA to be the most effective treatment for most sufferers.

I've found the VA to be top notch in its treatment of those diagnosed with PTSD.

Have you heeded the "wake-up call" and enlisted and served a tour yourself?

No need to answer that, trust me I can tell by your post(s) you haven't.

I think the only fantasy here is your own if you think you know one damn thing about PTSD.

7 X 57 summed up the rest.

.454
11-10-2009, 5:44 PM
And you base that opinion on what?

As I just said: these liberals probably watched too many Rambo movies. Somehow they got this weird idea that most combat veterans are dormant mass killers just waiting for the first opportunity to snap and go on a murdering rampage.

By the way, where did I put my bow and the C-4 tipped arrows? My neighbor plays loud mariachi music again. I feel like a PTSD attack is coming. Maybe I'm gonna pay him a visit after midnight. :D

bodger
11-10-2009, 5:54 PM
PTSD is bull****. Secondary PTSD is even dumber.

My grandfather fought for three years along side the Afrika Korps in North Africa and spent two years as a POW in Louisiana picking cotton.

I heard his stories for decades, and I even made a feature length documentary about it. He didn't have any sort of PTSD and I sure as hell don't have any secondary PTSD from hearing the stories, many of which are not fit for a public forum.


Tell us about your experiences in combat, not your grandfather's.

Or come with me to the VA some night and sit in on a meeting and see if you still think PTSD is bull****. Stand up in the room with me and 20 other vets, all combat vets, and make the statement that PTSD is bull****.

I live in Hollywood too, baby, I'll be happy to give you a ride to the VA.


And before it comes up, I have declined any monetary compensation from the government for service-related disability even though according to them, I qualify.
I pay back the VA for my treatment by volunteering at the center. There are a lot of young troops coming back with physical wounds that need all the help they can get.

I don't have an opinion on Secondary PTSD.

The Director
11-10-2009, 6:15 PM
Tell us about your experiences in combat, not your grandfather's.

Or come with me to the VA some night and sit in on a meeting and see if you still think PTSD is bull****. Stand up in the room with me and 20 other vets, all combat vets, and make the statement that PTSD is bull****.

I live in Hollywood too, baby, I'll be happy to give you a ride to the VA.


And before it comes up, I have declined any monetary compensation from the government for service-related disability even though according to them, I qualify.
I pay back the VA for my treatment by volunteering at the center. There are a lot of young troops coming back with physical wounds that need all the help they can get.

I don't have an opinion on Secondary PTSD.

My experience in combat is limited to the kind found in a marriage of fourteen years. Does that count? :D

Okay answer me this. I get that PTSD can be a real phenomenon for some people. Why is it that it seems to have really become prevalent in 'Nam? Was that war worse than WWII or Korea, or the first world war?

Not jerking you here, just trying to find out why PTSD is becoming far, far more prevalent.

bodger
11-10-2009, 6:43 PM
My experience in combat is limited to the kind found in a marriage of fourteen years. Does that count? :D

Okay answer me this. I get that PTSD can be a real phenomenon for some people. Why is it that it seems to have really become prevalent in 'Nam? Was that war worse than WWII or Korea, or the first world war?

Not jerking you here, just trying to find out why PTSD is becoming far, far more prevalent.


No jerking, and I apologize for coming across as strong as I did. And if your Grandpa is still around, thank him for his service.

It's a good question, and one that comes up often. Going back to WWI, and WWII, one theory is that what they called "combat fatigue" back then was a version of the disorder. And that was associated at the time with malingering, cowardice, or just not being able to take it.

And that generation was a lot less likely to seek help for anything having to do with mental issues due to the negative consequences that could result 60 years ago. You could be labeled a nut job and find that following you.

As for Vietnam Vets, the VA didn't really seem to know much about the effects of mental trauma at the time most of us returned. Also, we weren't treated so well by the VA at first, and a lot of us gave up on them. Anything having to do with the government was not exactly the favorite pasttime of the average VN vet back around the time the war ended.

As I have now been dealing with what the VA has told me is full blown PTSD for a few years now, I'm starting to understand my father a bit more. He died in 1980 at the age of 65. He enlisted shortly after Pearl Harbor was attacked and saw a lot of action in the Pacific.

He suffered from sleep disorders, panic attacks, loud noises other than his own firearms were sure to put him on the ground. I don't know if he had what would be diagnosed as PTSD, but he had something lingering from combat that put the zap on his head to his dying day. He never once spoke of his war experiences, and that is one symptom of traumatic event disorder.

The statistic on PTSD seems to hold fairly firm at 30% or less. It just doesn't effect everyone as far as they can tell.
And I don't think anyone has a real handle on treating this. Putting a bunch of guys in a room that have had similar experiences and similar blow-back from them and getting them to talk to each other under the guidance of another combat vet seems to abate the effects of it.

I couldn't say I'm an expert on it. The VA says I have it, there ain't no cure, and if that's what ails me sometimes, it's a real pain in the azz.

And yes, 14 years of marriage counts as combat! :D:D

The Director
11-10-2009, 6:48 PM
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my insensitivity.

Gramps is still alive BTW. He turned 89 this year! Thanks for asking!

bodger
11-10-2009, 6:55 PM
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my insensitivity.

Gramps is still alive BTW. He turned 89 this year! Thanks for asking!


Well, good on ya Gramps!

Be sure to thank him for our freedom tomorrow on Veteran's Day.

nick
11-10-2009, 7:00 PM
Well, good on ya Gramps!

Be sure to thank him for our freedom tomorrow on Veteran's Day.

Umm, he fought ALONGSIDE Afrika Korps :)

The Director
11-10-2009, 7:11 PM
Umm, he fought ALONGSIDE Afrika Korps :)

Yes, he did. Brescia Division, Kings Army, Italian Army, North Africa. He saw Rommel on many occasions as he was an infantryman and Rommel was fond of being on the front lines.

I'm still proud as hell of him. He fought well for his country, lost many, many friends, and endured hardships in a desert war that would never be inflicted on modern soldiers.

The Kings soldiers weren't blackshirts and were not fascists. Rommel also had a good crew in North Afrika, detested killing Jews, and was not a member of the Nazi party.

The day my grandpas' unit took 16,000 English soldiers captive, they gave them the food out of their rucksacks and the water out of their canteens because the English had exhausted their own supplies. The English reciprocated a few years later at El Alamein when they took my grandpa prisoner.

Honorable war, honorable warriors.


Unlike today, where we treat our enemy with a respect and courtesy, which they do not reciprocate.

M. Sage
11-10-2009, 7:27 PM
The Special lottery I would propose would be that a "winner or anyone they delegate gets a all expense paid trip to TEXAS and they get to participate in the FIRING SQUAD.


Will a gun and ammo be provided for me, or can I bring my own pellet gun? :p

Wow, I am really impressed that you know all this stuff, in so many different disciplines, whereas the rest of us know nada about anything. Thank you for coming down to earth to demonstrate to us how ignorant we are and how mighty you are.





Not.

Welcome to one of the top 15 liberal debate tactics: "You just don't understand but I do because I'm smarter/better educated and you're dumb/ignorant."

But a claim that this bozo shot up a bunch of soldiers because he had heard too many war stories is that of a fool or a lier.

Man, I've been seeking out and listening to war stories in person, print and video for my whole life. You'd think I'd feel some kind of stress if this was a real condition.

I've heard stuff that most people wouldn't believe. I didn't at first...

PTSD is bull****. Secondary PTSD is even dumber.

My grandfather fought for three years along side the Afrika Korps in North Africa and spent two years as a POW in Louisiana picking cotton.

I heard his stories for decades, and I even made a feature length documentary about it. He didn't have any sort of PTSD and I sure as hell don't have any secondary PTSD from hearing the stories, many of which are not fit for a public forum.

+1 I started listening to my grandfather's stories of the Pacific and moved on from there. I've been talking to vets and getting their stories (many unbelievable and quite a few horrific) for decades. I know we're not the only ones. How many people like us have snapped? :rolleyes:

I hope you only mean that PTSD is BS in this case. Because PTSD is certainly real. The funny thing is that one thing makes it worse: being told that the war you fought was "illegal", "immoral" or "wrong." Hippies don't cause PTSD, but they make it a lot worse.

dfletcher
11-10-2009, 7:36 PM
I don't mean to be cavalier, but if anyone has heard George Carlin's bit on how words have been used regarding shell shock through the years - part comedy and part commentary - rather interesting. Can't find it to post.

I think it's always existed, the way in which it's handled by those who experience it is I think a combination of upbringing and contemporary society.

7x57
11-10-2009, 7:43 PM
Rommel also had a good crew in North Afrika, detested killing Jews, and was not a member of the Nazi party.


There seems to be some reason to think that Rommel might have been less aloof from Nazi policies than often said.

But yeah, he had a great army. And that army had a great general.

7x57

M. Sage
11-10-2009, 7:43 PM
Yes. Starts off short and to the point. "Shell shock", then "battle fatigue" - weaker sounding, doesn't sound as serious. Then you get into PTSD: post traumatic stress disorder.

First one sounds like it means you're dealing with the shock of having people try to drop explosives on your head, the second you just sound tired, and PTSD sounds like you're stressed out about something that made you unhappy...

7x57
11-10-2009, 8:04 PM
Okay answer me this. I get that PTSD can be a real phenomenon for some people. Why is it that it seems to have really become prevalent in 'Nam? Was that war worse than WWII or Korea, or the first world war?

Not jerking you here, just trying to find out why PTSD is becoming far, far more prevalent.

The usual answer is that it was always there, undiagnosed.

There is another explanation which I find interesting, but can't verify. I got it a long time ago from Grossman's On Killing and pass it along for whatever it may be worth. It has several parts, which I may even remember.

The first is that the army figured out how to really teach the reluctant to shoot to kill by Vietnam--he claims that in most people the inhibition to kill is strong enough that the majority of soldiers tended not to in previous wars. So by Vietnam the army had learned to break down that inhibition to increase the combat effectiveness of the soldiers. But the price is that those with the strongest inhibitions are precisely those who will suffer the most from having killed in combat.

My comments: if that's true, it is a good explanation for why combat-related problems appear greater by Vietnam. But is it true? You would think that it would be accompanied by a great increase in combat effectiveness, as enemy casualties should increase dramatically. I don't have a gut feeling that this really happened.

The second part is what happened when a soldier returned from combat. In WWII, says Grossman, soldiers had an extended transition back into civilian life. First on the troop ships, where they were with others who had experienced the same things and who understood. Then they were first re-united with their families in a military setting. He connects this with the way most cultures provide a kind of acceptance or cleansing ritual which allows the community to affirm the morality of the soldiers. They have killed, but did so with community sanction.

But in Vietnam, says Grossman, there was no special provision. A soldier could be flown home and go from combat to home in 48 hours. He thinks the lack of at least an informal return ritual prevented many from dealing constructively with their experiences.

Third, he argues that the Vietnam veterans returned to a country so divided over the war that in reality it did *not* affirm the soldiers as soldiers, not murderers. On the contrary, many were called murderers to their faces, giving voice to the precise fear that Grossman thinks must be dealt with.

If I am recalling correctly, Grossman attributes those three related factors to what he regards as a real increase in the incidence of psychological problems in veterans: forcibly conditioning out the killing inhibition precisely in those who will suffer the most without it, not making space for re-acceptance into civilian society, and a society which in any event did not accept them.

As stated, I certainly can't judge how good Grossman's arguments are, but I found them interesting and at least facially plausible. OTOH there are a couple of other aspects of Grossman's work (relating to civilians forced to violent self-defense) I think wrong, so perhaps I should be a bit suspicious of this part too.

Perhaps some of the actual vets will have thoughts on all that.

7x57

M. Sage
11-10-2009, 8:19 PM
The usual answer is that it was always there, undiagnosed.

There is another explanation which I find interesting, but can't verify. I got it a long time ago from Grossman's On Killing and pass it along for whatever it may be worth. It has several parts, which I may even remember.

The first is that the army figured out how to really teach the reluctant to shoot to kill by Vietnam--he claims that in most people the inhibition to kill is strong enough that the majority of soldiers tended not to in previous wars. So by Vietnam the army had learned to break down that inhibition to increase the combat effectiveness of the soldiers. But the price is that those with the strongest inhibitions are precisely those who will suffer the most from having killed in combat.

My comments: if that's true, it is a good explanation for why combat-related problems appear greater by Vietnam. But is it true? You would think that it would be accompanied by a great increase in combat effectiveness, as enemy casualties should increase dramatically. I don't have a gut feeling that this really happened.

Grossman based his conclusion on a very suspect (at best) study of WWII vets by S.L.A Marshall. I've heard that it's been proven that he massaged figures to support the theories that he had before starting his study. Capt. Dick Winters (of "Easy Company" fame) was interviewed by Marshall and had nothing good to say about the man - that Marshall would ignore anything you said that didn't fit his preconceived notion.

I do think that Grossman is right to a degree - we have become more effective at training people to fire at other people, but not to the degree that Grossman claims it happened. Remember that earlier in the book Grossman said that Americans were a lot closer to death in their daily civilian lives than we are now - IMO this would count for something to say the least.

As far as a "great" increase in enemy casualties, there are too many variables to be able to chalk this one up to anything. Combat effectiveness alone has a ton of variables that will affect it. Also, the greatest killer on the battlefield is not infantry, it's usually artillery and air assets.

The second part is what happened when a soldier returned from combat. In WWII, says Grossman, soldiers had an extended transition back into civilian life. First on the troop ships, where they were with others who had experienced the same things and who understood. Then they were first re-united with their families in a military setting. He connects this with the way most cultures provide a kind of acceptance or cleansing ritual which allows the community to affirm the morality of the soldiers. They have killed, but did so with community sanction.

Don't forget that WWII vets fought alongside the men they deployed with instead of rotating into a unit that's already formed and then rotating back out again.

But in Vietnam, says Grossman, there was no special provision. A soldier could be flown home and go from combat to home in 48 hours. He thinks the lack of at least an informal return ritual prevented many from dealing constructively with their experiences.

Third, he argues that the Vietnam veterans returned to a country so divided over the war that in reality it did *not* affirm the soldiers as soldiers, not murderers. On the contrary, many were called murderers to their faces, giving voice to the precise fear that Grossman thinks must be dealt with.

If I am recalling correctly, Grossman attributes those three related factors to what he regards as a real increase in the incidence of psychological problems in veterans: forcibly conditioning out the killing inhibition precisely in those who will suffer the most without it, not making space for re-acceptance into civilian society, and a society which in any event did not accept them.

IMO the fact that we're sending volunteers and not conscripts will help a lot with the first factor. Don't wanna kill? Don't join up. Compared to "kill or die!" from Vietnam... I could see how that would be a lot less stressful, but... The Greatest Generation was drafted, too. Because of this, I put a lot more weight on the other two, and less on the first reason listed.

As stated, I certainly can't judge how good Grossman's arguments are, but I found them interesting and at least facially plausible. OTOH there are a couple of other aspects of Grossman's work (relating to civilians forced to violent self-defense) I think wrong, so perhaps I should be a bit suspicious of this part too.

Perhaps some of the actual vets will have thoughts on all that.

7x57

I'm suspicious of it all, but much of it sounds plausible as you said.

Don't forget that he also puts a lot of blame for civilian violence on video games and "easy access" to firearms and "assault weapons". Definitely a work to be taken with a grain of salt (especially knowing that he based a lot of the work on the discredited Marshall study), but I think there is some truth to some of what he wrote.

I'd also like to say that more credible numbers show that our current crop of shooters are a lot more likely to pull the trigger on a killing shot than they ever seem to have been (ignoring the Marshall study). I put a lot of that to this being a volunteer force, and not a conscript army.

The colonists shot the crap out of the British column that ran for their lives back to Boston from Concord. And these were people who probably never dreamed they'd kill another human.

Meplat
11-10-2009, 8:51 PM
I hade an uncle who was sunk at the battle of Savo Island. Among other things, he comforted, and administered morphine to, a shipmate who’s body was completely shot away below the waist. He spent considerable time in the water fending off sharks before being rescued. After the war he married had a family and retired from AMF in the 80s.

Another uncle fought with “Chesty” Puller in the battle for Henderson Field on Guadalcanal. They lived on bananas, rats, mice, and any other critters they could catch. He had incurable rashes caused by exotic tropical fungi flare up on his feet and legs till the day he died. He came home and became a farmer.

Another uncle flew B-24s in the Pacific. They slept under the wings of their aircraft. They made almost daily raids on Rabul, the Japanese “Gibraltar of the pacific”. Triple A and fighter opposition were horrendous. On one raid an anti aircraft artillery shell came through the bottom of the aircraft and contact detonated on the bottom of his co-pilot’s seat. His co-pilot, also his best friend, was splattered all over the remains of the cockpit. Red lumps of human flesh draining trickles of blood were everywhere. My uncle had dozens of small shrapnel wounds. He managed to fly the crippled B-24 home across hundreds of miles of the trackless Pacific Ocean, shot up and without any power assistance to help with the huge control surfaces of the bomber. He nearly passed out from lack of blood before he got the airplane down. After the war he only talked about it with his closest friends, and then only when drinking. He would cry and talk about the slow drip, drip, drip of his buddy’s blood slowly dripping in his face. You see, his co-pilots helmet was plastered to the overhead above my uncles head with the remains of his brain still in it. He flew for United Airlines until he was over 80, when he could no longer pass the physical.

All these people, as well as most of the adult males who I looked up to as a child and many who helped raise me had ugly experiences in WWII, but they blended back into civilian life. They were loving husbands gentle fathers and good citizens.

If you were a Viet Nam veteran on the other hand the sudo scientists and news reporters of the left branded you a ticking time bomb. I resented it then and I resent it now. PTSD? Maybe it exists, but if it does it is rare. At least to the extent that it is a danger to the public, probably a lot more victims are damaged in their ability to function in society, limiting their success and prosperity. These we should do all we can for. But, we need to revere, not fear veterans. And “secondary” PTSD? Give me a break.

Meplat
11-10-2009, 9:04 PM
The Italian army was an honorable outfit and you can be proud of him. The Afrika Corps was also an honorable unit, and tough as nails. No hard feelings here.





Yes, he did. Brescia Division, Kings Army, Italian Army, North Africa. He saw Rommel on many occasions as he was an infantryman and Rommel was fond of being on the front lines.

I'm still proud as hell of him. He fought well for his country, lost many, many friends, and endured hardships in a desert war that would never be inflicted on modern soldiers.

The Kings soldiers weren't blackshirts and were not fascists. Rommel also had a good crew in North Afrika, detested killing Jews, and was not a member of the Nazi party.

The day my grandpas' unit took 16,000 English soldiers captive, they gave them the food out of their rucksacks and the water out of their canteens because the English had exhausted their own supplies. The English reciprocated a few years later at El Alamein when they took my grandpa prisoner.

Honorable war, honorable warriors.


Unlike today, where we treat our enemy with a respect and courtesy, which they do not reciprocate.

bodger
11-10-2009, 9:08 PM
The usual answer is that it was always there, undiagnosed.

There is another explanation which I find interesting, but can't verify. I got it a long time ago from Grossman's On Killing and pass it along for whatever it may be worth. It has several parts, which I may even remember.

The first is that the army figured out how to really teach the reluctant to shoot to kill by Vietnam--he claims that in most people the inhibition to kill is strong enough that the majority of soldiers tended not to in previous wars. So by Vietnam the army had learned to break down that inhibition to increase the combat effectiveness of the soldiers. But the price is that those with the strongest inhibitions are precisely those who will suffer the most from having killed in combat.

My comments: if that's true, it is a good explanation for why combat-related problems appear greater by Vietnam. But is it true? You would think that it would be accompanied by a great increase in combat effectiveness, as enemy casualties should increase dramatically. I don't have a gut feeling that this really happened.

The second part is what happened when a soldier returned from combat. In WWII, says Grossman, soldiers had an extended transition back into civilian life. First on the troop ships, where they were with others who had experienced the same things and who understood. Then they were first re-united with their families in a military setting. He connects this with the way most cultures provide a kind of acceptance or cleansing ritual which allows the community to affirm the morality of the soldiers. They have killed, but did so with community sanction.

But in Vietnam, says Grossman, there was no special provision. A soldier could be flown home and go from combat to home in 48 hours. He thinks the lack of at least an informal return ritual prevented many from dealing constructively with their experiences.

Third, he argues that the Vietnam veterans returned to a country so divided over the war that in reality it did *not* affirm the soldiers as soldiers, not murderers. On the contrary, many were called murderers to their faces, giving voice to the precise fear that Grossman thinks must be dealt with.

If I am recalling correctly, Grossman attributes those three related factors to what he regards as a real increase in the incidence of psychological problems in veterans: forcibly conditioning out the killing inhibition precisely in those who will suffer the most without it, not making space for re-acceptance into civilian society, and a society which in any event did not accept them.

As stated, I certainly can't judge how good Grossman's arguments are, but I found them interesting and at least facially plausible. OTOH there are a couple of other aspects of Grossman's work (relating to civilians forced to violent self-defense) I think wrong, so perhaps I should be a bit suspicious of this part too.

Perhaps some of the actual vets will have thoughts on all that.

7x57


I would certainly agree with what you've stated Grossman wrote regarding the transition.

Most other VN vets I knew, or knew of, avoided each other and didn't really want anyone to know about their service.

I went to the VA about three months after I was discharged because I had heard they were offering a job referral service. The VA worker (also a VN vet)gave me the job lead, a warehouse job, and told me to tell the person who would be conducting the interview that I had heard they might be hiring from a friend.
Don't mention the VA, and don't say anything about the military service I had just completed. He told me what I already knew, that we were viewed as damaged goods, baby killers, whacked-out drug addicts and otherwise unfit for society.

I had volunteered for service in the armed forces at the age of 18, had an honorable discharge, there were veterans in my family that could literally be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War and had not skipped any major wars in between to speak of.

But I had to be careful not to mention my own service for fear of not getting a barely minimum wage job in a warehouse in Columbus, Ohio.

What I wanted most at that moment was to go back to my base in Southeast Asia.

KylaGWolf
11-10-2009, 9:10 PM
Here is the thing there are guys that have served multiple tours in Iraq and have had PTSD and didn't kill anyone. Although a friend of mine had serious issues with PTSD when he came home from Iraq. He had to freaking BEG for help his wife had to beg for help too. Rather sad really. Everyone is saying he had PTSD...well that didn't have him going to a known terrorist website and get information and make contact. What is even more frightening is the military and others were told he was a danger and it was ignored.

I know I wouldn't want to hear the stories either but if no one does hear them the soldiers that need help won't get it.

bodger
11-10-2009, 9:24 PM
Here is the thing there are guys that have served multiple tours in Iraq and have had PTSD and didn't kill anyone. Although a friend of mine had serious issues with PTSD when he came home from Iraq. He had to freaking BEG for help his wife had to beg for help too. Rather sad really. Everyone is saying he had PTSD...well that didn't have him going to a known terrorist website and get information and make contact. What is even more frightening is the military and others were told he was a danger and it was ignored.

I know I wouldn't want to hear the stories either but if no one does hear them the soldiers that need help won't get it.


I'm surprised that he had to beg.

But then again, I have heard that the VA is inconsistent with their help for vets with stress issues. And also, they are currently getting overwhelmed with returning soldiers who are seeking help for these types of disorders.

I don't think one-on-one psychiatry or therapy is much help, at least it wasn't for me. Getting into a group with other vets is where the real talking took place that helped me more than anything.

As for this Fort Hood shooter, I'm damn sorry the subject of PTSD even came up where this guy's heinous crime is concerned.

Meplat
11-10-2009, 9:27 PM
Thank you for your service. You kept the Commies at bay for 13 years. Then Raigen plowed them under. Thank you.

I would certainly agree with what you've stated Grossman wrote regarding the transition.

Most other VN vets I knew, or knew of, avoided each other and didn't really want anyone to know about their service.

I went to the VA about three months after I was discharged because I had heard they were offering a job referral service. The VA worker (also a VN vet)gave me the job lead, a warehouse job, and told me to tell the person who would be conducting the interview that I had heard they might be hiring from a friend.
Don't mention the VA, and don't say anything about the military service I had just completed. He told me what I already knew, that we were viewed as damaged goods, baby killers, whacked-out drug addicts and otherwise unfit for society.

I had volunteered for service in the armed forces at the age of 18, had an honorable discharge, there were veterans in my family that could literally be traced all the way back to the Revolutionary War and had not skipped any major wars in between to speak of.

But I had to be careful not to mention my own service for fear of not getting a barely minimum wage job in a warehouse in Columbus, Ohio.

What I wanted most at that moment was to go back to my base in Southeast Asia.

bodger
11-10-2009, 9:34 PM
Thank you for your service. You kept the Commies at bay for 13 years. Then Raigen plowed them under. Thank you.


It was my priviledge to serve.

And I appreciate the thanks. More than I can tell you. I had been home almost 20 years before I ever heard anyone say that.

I remember the first time someone did say that to me.
I was in a Dairy Queen in rural Ohio in 1994. It was Veteran's Day, and I was wearing an old OD green field jacket. A woman asked me if I was a veteran and I answered yes, and she thanked me for my service.

I almost made it back to my truck before the tears were streaming down my face.
Corny and mawkish as it may sound, that was a big moment. My guess is that there are a lot of other VN vets who can recall the first time they were thanked as well.

The troops returning from Desert Storm sort of got us back on track.

Meplat
11-10-2009, 9:39 PM
I understand.

It was my priviledge to serve.

And I appreciate the thanks. More than I can tell you. I had been home almost 20 years before I ever heard anyone say that.

I remember the first time someone did say that to me.
I was in a Dairy Queen in rural Ohio in 1994. It was Veteran's Day, and I was wearing an old OD green field jacket. A woman asked me if I was a veteran and I answered yes, and she thanked me for my service.

I almost made it back to my truck before the tears were streaming down my face.
Corny and mawkish as it may sound, that was a big moment. My guess is that there are a lot of other VN vets who can recall the first time they were thanked as well.

The troops returning from Desert Storm sort of got us back on track.

7x57
11-10-2009, 10:17 PM
Grossman based his conclusion on a very suspect (at best) study of WWII vets by S.L.A Marshall.


I hadn't heard anything about that, but sounds plausible. There are things about his arguments that "aren't quite right," though often it's hard to say precisely what. Or that's my memory, it's been a long time since I read the book. I suppose I could do so if I re-read it and was motivated.


Don't forget that WWII vets fought alongside the men they deployed with instead of rotating into a unit that's already formed and then rotating back out again.


I forgot about that, and now that you say it I think Grossman emphasized unit integrity.


Don't forget that he also puts a lot of blame for civilian violence on video games and "easy access" to firearms and "assault weapons".


Yes, and that's where I (think I) know enough to distrust his results, which throws suspicion on his conclusions about the military that I have less knowledge about. Particularly odious, and it seems patently untrue simply on the face of our now-extensive experience with shall-issue, is the sheep/wolf/sheepdog universe. There seems to be no place in his universe for law-abiding, armed, effective citizens.

One problem is that if the rest of his discussion is correct, on the surface it should be true that (1) there would be a lot of instances of civilians attempting to shoot in self-defense but being unable to (which would tend toward the gun-banner's clam that "it'll just get taken away from you," which of course doesn't seem to happen all that often), and (2) even the most righteous shoot should have a terribly traumatic aftermath for most people. Neither seems true to the degree one would assume from the book.

There are ways around those points, but they still make me uneasy reasoning based on his claims. The best way out on both counts is probably to argue that self-defense is different psychologically--that because the defender knows himself to be the defender and not the aggressor, he has less inhibition to shoot (taking care of objection (1)), and afterwards has much less trouble justifying his actions to himself.

The problem with that line of reasoning (if it is a problem) is that it undermines Grossman's whole message for civilians. First, it means that access to weapons is not the problem he thinks it is--civilians who have the normal inhibition to kill (and are therefore "safe") can still protect themselves. There is no place in his sheep/wolf/sheepdog universe for such people.

Second, if some social structures are better than others at the philosophical support for soldiers, the same must be true for armed citizens. That means that one can systematically train the sheep to not be sheep (without attempting to train them to be soldiers). I actually believe this, and that this is what traditional societies did. But again, it's outside anything I remember in the book.

What is frustrating is that those are perhaps the most important issues raised, and he ignores them. It's tempting to say he ignores them because he's a committed gun-banner. At the least, he has a rather simplistic, deterministic view of human nature that doesn't ring true.


The colonists shot the crap out of the British column that ran for their lives back to Boston from Concord. And these were people who probably never dreamed they'd kill another human.

As the above suggests, I suspect his information applies mostly to historically weird societies that didn't teach little boys that it's inherently good to be brave and to fight for society instead of against it. His analysis may have no relevance for a society in arms that is clear on why each man should be able and willing to employ deadly force in defense of self and others.

In short, he may not have a complete theory, but only one of sheep living in a society that creates more sheep.

7x57

Nose Nuggets
11-10-2009, 11:54 PM
Hey, time to wake up and smell the coffee pal. Hasan had priors:
-he openly declared in several occasions he supports suicide bombings and killing of infidels.
-He corresponded in dozens of emails with an Al-Quaeda operative; the man is a former Imam at the mosque where Hasan worships, he is a fugitive from the law and he is hiding abroad.

Yet, you still manage somehow to discount all this IN YOUR FACE EVIDENCE pointing to a domestic act of Islamic terrorism and claim the poor murderer is just an innocent victim who "snapped".

PTSD? Really? You know what? I believe you've seen way too many Rambo movies.
Dude, I'll be frank with you: you are insulting my intelligence, you are insulting the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of military veterans and you piss you on the graves of the victims, all three in the same time.
You know, if you really think what Hasan did is not his fault and he's just a poor guy who didn't premeditated this act of terror, maybe you should submit an application with the DOJ and adopt him. Just take him home and care for him.

Are you sure you quoted the right post? because i don't think you red what i wrote.

odysseus
11-11-2009, 12:11 AM
The discussion of PTSD for Hasan is sheer speculation and reaching, nor are they of any real use to attempt to reason his islamic jihad murderous rampage. Sure, he was angry and upset. Whatever.

Maestro Pistolero
11-11-2009, 12:41 AM
Anybody care to take odds on how long before the government admits this is a domestic terrorist attack that they could and should have foreseen? :gene:

NiteQwill
11-11-2009, 12:55 AM
BTW folks, it's not called "secondary PTSD." It's called compassion fatigue. And yes, it does exist. It is a phenomenon for healthcare personnel (and others) exposed to countless hours of debriefings regarding the primary exposure of personnel they are treating. Common among social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, mental health technichians, and occupational therapists. I won't expand on the topic on this thread as it already looks like many are stuck in their ways.

Here's a study that I assisted in collecting and was eventually published in the April 2009 issue of The Journal of Mental Health Counseling (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Combat+stress+reactions+during+military+deployment s:+evaluation+of...-a0198288855).

Is this an excuse for Hasan? Hell no! PTSD is not an "out" to kill people. An individual is still responsible for all their actions.

bodger
11-11-2009, 6:35 AM
BTW folks, it's not called "secondary PTSD." It's called compassion fatigue. And yes, it does exist. It is a phenomenon for healthcare personnel (and others) exposed to countless hours of debriefings regarding the primary exposure of personnel they are treating. Common among social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, mental health technichians, and occupational therapists. I won't expand on the topic on this thread as it already looks like many are stuck in their ways.

Here's a study that I assisted in collecting and was eventually published in the April 2009 issue of The Journal of Mental Health Counseling (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Combat+stress+reactions+during+military+deployment s:+evaluation+of...-a0198288855).

Is this an excuse for Hasan? Hell no! PTSD is not an "out" to kill people. An individual is still responsible for all their actions.


That's the first I have heard about "compassion fatigue", and it sounds like a more accurate term for what happens to healthcare personnel after treating and debriefing PTSD sufferers for extended periods.

Secondary PTSD is something that the VA definitely addresses and in some centers offers treatment and counseling for. The VA's position on it is that it affects the people who are close to someone with PTSD. In some cases apparently, extended periods of time living with and dealing with a PTSD sufferer can create a similar syndrome amongst those close to the afflicted vet.

I'm not quick to offer a negative opinion on the possibly that secondary exists, but I'm equally as reticent to jump on that wagon and say it does.

Compassion fatigue sounds like a more plausible condition.

I just hope this Hasan fellow doesn't catch any breaks from compassionate bleeding hearts because his name is getting mentioned in the same sentence with PTSD. He wasn't even a combat vet.

He committed a pre-meditated act of terrorism in the name of radical Islam, and beyond that, not much else matters.

dustoff31
11-11-2009, 7:04 AM
That's the first I have heard about "compassion fatigue", and it sounds like a more accurate term for what happens to healthcare personnel after treating and debriefing PTSD sufferers for extended periods.

Secondary PTSD is something that the VA definitely addresses and in some centers offers treatment and counseling for. The VA's position on it is that it affects the people who are close to someone with PTSD. In some cases apparently, extended periods of time living with and dealing with a PTSD sufferer can create a similar syndrome amongst those close to the afflicted vet.

I'm not quick to offer a negative opinion on the possibly that secondary exists, but I'm equally as reticent to jump on that wagon and say it does.

Compassion fatigue sounds like a more plausible condition.

I just hope this Hasan fellow doesn't catch any breaks from compassionate bleeding hearts because his name is getting mentioned in the same sentence with PTSD. He wasn't even a combat vet.

He committed a pre-meditated act of terrorism in the name of radical Islam, and beyond that, not much else matters.

Compassion fatigue has been written about since the 50's. It has been identified in health care,relief, fire and police, and in fact, sometimes in the general population. Most people would call it "burnout".

So yes, it does exist, but any attempt to connect it, or attribute it to military service or a particular military action as one poster did, is nonsense.

And as others have pointed out, how many ER nurses at LA County, or paramedics for example, have gone on shooting sprees?

I realize that Wikipedia is far from a medical text, but here is an article on compassion fatigue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue

SIGscout
11-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I'm afraid this incident works in two ways.

1-Gives the liberals more reason(in there minds) to control who has guns, where you go, who you talk to, then ofcourse, more severe security levels.

2-Should show that one armed person, acting quickly (not waiting hours), can and will stop a person doing harm to innocent, honorable people.

Either way hopefully, more people will see that a responcible person with a gun ccw/uoc whatever, could have stopped this P O S.

Sombody's father would be alive, mother, brother, sister!

I don't care, believe what you want, one person in your family is more than too much to lose.

yellowfin
11-11-2009, 8:16 PM
"War used to be cruel and magnificent. Now it has become cruel and squalid." - Winston Churchill, on World War I, after having previously fought in the Boer War.

gemini1
11-11-2009, 8:48 PM
so your saying one mans experience with 35 years of combat negates any possibility of the existence of PTSD? i just want to make sure i understand this correctly. i dont want to say i agree or disagree per se, im just curious if you actually mean what you are implying.


No, no sir I was refering to the shooter getting PTSD. He has never even been to combat and they're saying it was PTSD? I do believe "war shock" shell shock PTSD or whatever else they may have been called does exist, but as other have said, not every one gets it. As I have pointed out my late uncle as an example.

Quser.619
11-11-2009, 8:50 PM
There is a simpler and more useful explanation for the Ft. Hood shootings than Islamic terror.

PTSD is what happens to some people when their nervous systems are in what amounts to an emotional train wreck. Imagine what happens to a person's body when that body is run over by a fast-moving train. If that person survives, he or she will never be physically entirely whole again. A person with PTSD never becomes emotionally whole again.

Lots of Iraq War vets have gotten PTSD after one tour, two tours, three tours, even four tours. 121 of these vets with PTSD have committed murders after coming home. None of them before becoming vets had any history of mental illness or criminal behavior. Or religious fanaticism for that matter.

Other people get PTSD indirectly. Like the spouses of Iraq War vets or the people who help treat the vets' PTSD or other people who help treat all sorts of PTSD cases day after day. Hearing endless horror stories, or experiencing an abundance of horror yourself, can definitely frazzle you. Permanently.

The Ft. Hood shooter very likely had what is called "secondary PTSD."

PTSD is a problem the U.S. military doesn't like having to deal with. It's expensive to treat and the treatments often are marginally helpful. It gets back to the problem that the "War on Terror" is an endless war with no clear purpose. We don't have enough young people to feed into the war machine so soldiers don't have to serve multiple tours. We probably need to bring back the draft. I think lots of young "Islamic terrorist"-hating Calgunners would get a real wake-up call from enlisting and serving a tour.

A last note: the idea of "Islamic terrorism" isn't very useful. Islamic fanatics are as much at war with one another as they are with the coalition troopers in Afghanistan and Iraq. There are among the Islamic sects Sunnis and Shia. Some of them hate one another and work very hard at killing one another. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? That time we were on the Sunni or Iraqi side because we distrusted the Shia or Iranian side. After we deposed Saddam, we kicked the Sunnis out of government and fostered the Shia. Remember the talk about whether there was a civil war in Iraq? That was all about the Shia fanatics killing the Sunni fanatics and vice-versa.

I could go on, but mere facts don't seem to get much attention here. It's much easier to get all wound-up about a fantasy.

Personally I find it offensive to make PTSD sound like the flu, that mere temporary exposure allows one to pick it up.

We keep forgetting that this man - for lack of a better term - was a trained medical professional & discarded it, like the oath of loyalty he made, to kill unarmed men & women. Period. The culmination of which was shooting a pregnant woman in the back - a crime against humanity in every religious or civilized culture.

He not only broke an oath, killed his comrades & soldiers-in-arms, defied his professional training as a doctor & as a soldier, killed the unarmed, killed a defenseless woman, but he brought his religion into it all.

He deserves not our respect or understanding, he deserves to be treated as a functioning adult, who made the very worst decisions possible & put down like a rabid dog & made example of.

His final humility being that in even in his death, we will stand by our laws, our beliefs & accord him nothing but the respect & rights we share w/ everyone else, guilty or innocent. A courtesy he wasn't man enough to offer his perceived enemies as he gunned them without alarm or provocation.

I can only hope that he feels the cold irony of the fact it was a woman, non-military officer that brought him down.

gemini1
11-11-2009, 9:00 PM
Posted by Bodger
My guess is that there are a lot of other VN vets who can recall the first time they were thanked as well.


I may not have understood why the 'Nam vets returning home were not welcome, but you sir as well as the other vets have my sincerest appreciation and admiration for what you've done.

bodger
11-11-2009, 10:38 PM
I may not have understood why the 'Nam vets returning home were not welcome, but you sir as well as the other vets have my sincerest appreciation and admiration for what you've done.


Thank you.

dfletcher
11-11-2009, 11:08 PM
I think it's important to remember that a fellow (or woman) can suffer from PTSD and as a result have nightmares, drink too much, isolate themselves from people and have a whole host of other problems that most folks won't notice or recognize. There may be an 80 or so year old neighbor who kind of keeps to himself, he can suffer from PTSD just as badly as someone has violent outbursts in public.

When folks comment "there didn't used to be all the PTSD" I think, I'll bet if you asked alot of WWII & Korean Ware veterans' wives they'd tell us otherwise.

bodger
11-12-2009, 6:03 AM
I may not have understood why the 'Nam vets returning home were not welcome, but you sir as well as the other vets have my sincerest appreciation and admiration for what you've done.

I can only speak for myself and from my own experiences.

At the top of the food chain amongst those who villified us were the protesters, those who vehemently opposed our involvement in the war, and voiced an opinion that anyone who volunteered for military service during that time, or answered the call of the Selective Service, was a traitor to their generation and their country. And deserved to be labeled a war criminal along with the politicians and large corporations who fomented prolonged engagement in Southeast Asia.
I had a professor at Ohio State University who upon learning I was recently returned from service in the war, asked me to drop his class.

Some of the WWII vets felt that Vietnam was the first war America ever lost and the reason for the loss was that for the most part, it was fought by the televison generation.
The average age of a troop in Vietnam was 19, and many people were of the opinion that they had been brought up on Howdy Doody and Mickey Mouse and spoiled by the affluence of the American middle class. And went to the combat zone and sat on their azzes smoking the local herb and looked for ways to get home early and join their hippie counterparts back in the world. That exact opinion was expressed to me by a WWII vet in an American legion in Circleville, Ohio in 1974.

Mostly I think the average American just wanted to forget and move on. At best, as VN vets we were to pitied and avoided, and at worst, to be reminded that we helped the evil cause of the war which killed millions of civilians.

In any case, one learned very quickly that the odds of running into someone who was proud of you for what you did were nil, and you had best keep your experience to yourself.

America had its "Peace With Honor" and didn't want to be reminded of the rest of it. Ask someone if they know the exact date the war in VN ended. When we evacuated the embassy and left the country to the NVA.
Uh....1960....something?



I think it's important to remember that a fellow (or woman) can suffer from PTSD and as a result have nightmares, drink too much, isolate themselves from people and have a whole host of other problems that most folks won't notice or recognize. There may be an 80 or so year old neighbor who kind of keeps to himself, he can suffer from PTSD just as badly as someone has violent outbursts in public.

When folks comment "there didn't used to be all the PTSD" I think, I'll bet if you asked alot of WWII & Korean Ware veterans' wives they'd tell us otherwise.


In my group at the VA, for a while, we had a WWII combat vet in the group. I think he would agree with you.
We still have a Korean war vet who regularly attends. I know he would agree with you.

Combat vets who returned from those wars were for the most part told that if they still had their arms and legs, you're good to go.

dwa
11-12-2009, 6:27 PM
To those who I'm quite sure have misread what I wrote about Hasan and PTSD:

I didn't say anything about "insanity." "Insanity" is not a psychological or psychiatric definition of anything. It is an idea which has a legal definition which is used by courts of law to assess criminal responsibility. Big difference. Confusing important ideas is not useful.
ya never mind all the pro islamist information that has come out he was stressed from having not been deployed. if anything he was stressed from all the attempted converting he was doing at walter reid.
Regarding PTSD, how many of you "experts" are, or have been, professional practitioners in a mental health field?
are you?
How many of you are lawyers with expertise in capital cases, especially with regard to "insanity" defenses?
are you?
How many of you actually know anything about Islam or the last 50 years of screwed-up U.S. policy in the Middle East? How many of you know that the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran in the 1950s because this government wanted more oil revenue to help its people out? The beneficiaries of this coup d'etat were big oil. Iran has been hostile to the U.S. ever since and the religious fanatics have had major influence in government there ever since.
who doesn't what does this have to do with hassan having ptsd and if relevant at all would be evidence that he was in fact a jihadist
How many of you who are of military age and in good health and absolutely certain of the threat of Islam to us have served a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why not? What are you waiting for? Or if you've served in another war, or even been in service, please let us know when you've walked the walk. If you are a vet, then I will listen carefully to what you have to say about PTSD. Otherwise, it's just fantasy.
i turned 19 in iraq then 21, how many birthdays you had in country, are you not in good health? whats your excuse?
The purpose of making an effort to distinguish fact from fantasy is to be able to act and to plan effectively for preventing problems in the future. If you rely on fantasy, you can't solve problems. Anyone here ever run a business? (I doubt it!). How far did your fantasies about your success get you?
exactly and thats why trying to brush this off as ptsd is insulting top people who actually have it and doesn't address the problem, if a college of yours is talking about slaying the crusaders maybe there is a problem
Another fantasy is that incidents like the Ft. Hood massacre can be avoided by allowing everyone to carry a weapon at all times. It's much more complicated than that. Some people are good shooters under stress. Some people, even experienced military and law-enforcement, are not very good shooters under stress. Some well-intended people will kill all sorts of bystanders because of they can't handle a weapon well under stress.
so they should have had less guns and been safer?
I wonder how many of you who are so certain about the benefits of universal arming of people are in positions of responsibility for others? Any CEOs out there? Any military officers or noncoms? Any SWAT or FBI-trained people? I don't think so. Please come forth and speak if you really can distinguish fact from fantasy. Anyone ever read Massad Ayoob about the realities of shootings?
show me your credentials and ill show you mine
All that said, I am indeed in favor of some people being able to carry whenever appropriate. But those people need to have a good reason, be of good character and have demonstrated some understanding of the responsibilities and consequences of shooting. I don't think that people who are full of fantasies about their knowledge of the world, full of fantasies about their ability to judge others, full of fantastic hatred of other people that they imagine are evil because they are different, can be good candidates for carrying weapons, ever.
so if someone disagrees with you there full of hatred ect?
These fantasies about the way the world works and the uses and consequences of carrying weapons are the best kind of ammo for the anti-gun activists. Keep up the fantasizing and you will do everlasting damage to rational people who want to preserve 2nd Amendment rights.

Your seriously going to sit there and try to pass this off as ptsd. you have no idea how offensive that is to people who actually have it.

Meplat
11-12-2009, 11:01 PM
In military tradition a fireing squad is considered an honerable death. This *** hole does not deserve a fireing squad, he desirves to be hung.

I believe this 'traitor" must recieve a swift trial and the prosecutor should just go for what he can get convictions on quickly rather than drag this thing out.

I far as I am concerned the guy is guilty of not only multiple murders, but treason as well. The men and women of the military deserve swift action on this, otherwise it jeopardizes unit cohesiveness.

Military personal may not like each other, but they did watch each other's backs. If the troops can't trust each other, military discipline will fall apart.

I think though that his crimes are so horrible that we should have a special lottery with funds raised spent on the victims and their famlies.

The Special lottery I would propose would be that a "winner or anyone they delegate gets a all expense paid trip to TEXAS and they get to participate in the FIRING SQUAD.

Since this would probably have high demand, I propose we have 100 winners to supplement the normal number of members of the firing squad.

Winners of course would have the option of using a military supplied gun or bringing their own for a personal touch.

Now, while the miltary shooters would be limited to one shot because they are experts, the lottery winners would be allowed to take as many shots as they coud in 10 seconds.

This is so that winners would be sure that they got at least one hit.

Now, I realize that there probably wouldn't be much left of his body after this and it would probably mean that he would have to have a closed coffin burial.



I say so what.

Nicki

bodger
11-13-2009, 6:12 AM
So, he's going to be tried by a military court. And no doubt (I hope) will be given the death sentence.

But the appeals process in the military justice system is notoriously slow. Decades can pass before the sentence is actually carried out. They haven't executed anyone since 1961. By hanging, which is the same fate this coward who shot up Fort Hood deserves.

He should be on a greased rail to the gallows and a taught rope. And a nice scratchy one at that.

Firing squad is too good for this jihad sub-human POS.