Chrisy58’s Weblog

Ms M,

I know what you are saying is the truth. The excuses will continue to be made as to why they continue to believe and follow a so called leader who has proven by their actions that he is not worthy of their support or trust. Until people can see this for themselves and decide to leave they will continue to defend White Nationalism and be a loyal White Nationalist who thinks he/she is fighting for the 14 words. They will continue to think that they are White Nationalist because of LOVE for the race.

Some of them like many of us will wake up to the truth and will leave. Others may never wake up to the truth and will be White Nationalists until the day they die.

I still remain that his man rejected his country for either his religious beliefs, objections or fellow iraqi muslim brothers. I can’y see why else a man would go so completely off the rails and kill men he walked aside and councilled. That takes one hell of a psycotic break to achieve, time will tell us or CNN! Garfield
—————————–

I understand what you are saying. I agree with you that this man rejected his country (America) for some or all the reasons that you stated. It could have been his Muslim faith became more important than his nation that he was born in, his fellow soldiers who he worked and lived with day after day, or he just snaped mentally.

We won’t know until he starts to talk, and even then we may not know the whole truth. We do know one thing whatever caused him to snap is not excuse for what he did.

I heard today on talk radio that he will be tried in the army court. The process that it will go. He could get the death penality. I just want those families who are grieving to receive justice. Rather it is death or life in prison with no parole, this man will be punished for his crime as he should be.

Ms M,

I will start a new thread for you and Garfield to debate and discuss things. That way as Garfield pointed out we can keep this thread on topic of the Fort Hood Murders.

I think it is important that you have a chance to speak your minds. It might be a good thing for all of us, lol.

I think I will call this thread the ring. That way we can keep our discussions about White Nationalism in one thread only.

I will start “the Ring” right now.

Saturnia,

Glad you posted my friend.

Fox news reported that this shooter before he shot was shouting for Allah(sp).

I am not sure if this guy went crazy and just snaped or what his motive was.

No matter what his motive was is no excuse for his act of killing 13 innocent people who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Justice will have to be done. Those families who are grieving deserve that.

I am glad you are posting here again my friend. I feel really drained today, lol.

Yes, people are loosing hope and are getting discouraged like nothing is really going to change in their lives. Sometimes, I wonder if we can put the past totally behind us. We try and move forward and then we let things move us backwards. I feel like I have been moving backward the last few days and I don’t like this feeling.

I try to keep hope alive. I think my Catholic faith helps to keep believing and wating. I did get approve for health insurance in AZ and I am hoping that they cover PTSD. I really need to start treatment for that. I know in my own life how it really is a terrible thing to have.

I don’t know why he did it and yes, he will have to face what he did. Those families deserve justice.

I think that is one reason we have always clicked so well. We are both deep thinkers and always thinking about things. Maybe we should just have fun and live it up and not think about things so much? No, it wouldn’t be us if we did that!! We would no longer be us but someone who looked like us but not really us. You know like the Stepford Wives, lol.

I don’t think it is a bad thing that we are rebellious. I can see how someone can be to rebellious but I don’t think you and I are. We march to own own drummer. We are going to be misunderstood alot, but I think our sense of rebellion makes us interesting and I don’t think boring is something anyone would call either of us by friend.

I am going on facebook now I will check it out.

Love you.

Chrisy

Of course my friend!!!

I thought I would post this article for people to read and comment.

Published on Sunday, November 15, 2009 by The New York Times
The Missing Link From Killeen to Kabul
by Frank Rich

The dead at Fort Hood had not even been laid to rest when their massacre became yet another political battle cry for the self-proclaimed patriots of the American right.

Their verdict was unambiguous: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an American-born psychiatrist of Palestinian parentage who sent e-mail to a radical imam, was a terrorist. And he did not act alone. His co-conspirators included our military brass, the Defense Department, the F.B.I., the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and, of course, the liberal media and the Obama administration. All these institutions had failed to heed the warning signs raised by Hasan’s behavior and activities because they are blinded by political correctness toward Muslims, too eager to portray criminals as sympathetic victims of social injustice, and too cowardly to call out evil when it strikes 42 innocents in cold blood.

The invective aimed at these heinous P.C. pantywaists nearly matched that aimed at Hasan. Joe Lieberman announced hearings to investigate the Army for its dereliction of duty on homeland security. Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, vowed to unmask cover-ups in the White House and at the C.I.A. The Weekly Standard blog published a broadside damning the F.B.I. for neglecting the “broader terrorist plot” of which Hasan was only one of the connected dots. Jerome Corsi, the major-domo of the successful Swift-boating of John Kerry, unearthed what he said was proof that Hasan had advised President Obama during the transition.

William Bennett excoriated soft military leaders like Gen. George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, who had stood up for diversity and fretted openly about a backlash against Muslim soldiers in his ranks. “Blind diversity” that embraces Islam “equals death,” wrote Michelle Malkin. “There is a powerful case to be made that Islamic extremism is not some fringe phenomenon but part of the mainstream of Islamic life around the world,” wrote the columnist Jonah Goldberg. Islam is “not a religion,” declared the irrepressible Pat Robertson, but “a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world.”

As a snapshot of where a chunk of the country stands right now, these reactions to the Fort Hood bloodbath could not be more definitive. And it’s quite possible that some of what this crowd says is right – not about Islam in general, but about the systemic failure to stop a homicidal maniac like Hasan in particular. Whether he was an actual terrorist or an unfathomable mass murderer merely dabbling in jihadist ideas, the repeated red flags during his Army career illuminate a pattern of lapses in America’s national security. Whether those indicators were ignored because of political correctness, bureaucratic dysfunction, sheer incompetence or some hybrid thereof is still unclear, but, whichever, the system failed.

Yet the mass murder at Fort Hood didn’t happen in isolation. It unfolded against the backdrop of Obama’s final lap of decision-making about Afghanistan. For all the right’s jeremiads, its own brand of political correctness kept it from connecting two crucial dots: how our failing war against terrorists in Afghanistan might relate to our failure to stop a supposed terrorist attack at home. Most of those who decried the Army’s blindness to Hasan’s threat are strong proponents of sending more troops into our longest war. That they didn’t mention Afghanistan while attacking the entire American intelligence and defense apparatus in charge of that war may be the most telling revelation of this whole debate.

The reason they didn’t is obvious enough. Their screeds about the Hasan case are completely at odds with both the Afghanistan policy they endorse and the leadership that must execute that policy, including Gen. Stanley McChrystal. These hawks, all demanding that Obama act on McChrystal’s proposals immediately, do not seem to have read his strategy assessment for Afghanistan or the many press interviews he gave as it leaked out. If they had, they’d discover that the whole thrust of his counterinsurgency pitch is to befriend and win the support of the Afghan population – i.e., Muslims. The “key to success,” the general wrote in his brief to the president, will be “strong personal relationships forged between security forces and local populations.”

McChrystal thinks we might even jolly up those Muslims who historically and openly hate America. “I don’t think much of the Taliban are ideologically driven,” he told Dexter Filkins of The Times. “In my view their past is not important. Some people say, ‘Well, they have blood on their hands.’ I’d say, ‘So do a lot of people.’ I think we focus on future behavior.”

Whether we could win those hearts and minds is, arguably, an open question – though it’s an objective that would require a partner other than Hamid Karzai and many more troops than even McChrystal is asking for (or America presently has). But to say that McChrystal’s optimistic – dare one say politically correct? – view of Muslim pliability doesn’t square with that of America’s hawks is the understatement of the decade.

As their Fort Hood rhetoric made clear, McChrystal’s most vehement partisans don’t trust American Muslims, let alone those of the Taliban, no matter how earnestly the general may argue that they can be won over by our troops’ friendliness (or bribes). If, as the right has it, our Army cannot be trusted to recognize a Hasan in its own ranks, then how will it figure out who the “good” Muslims will be as we try to build a “stable” state (whatever “stable” means) in a country that has never had a functioning central government? If our troops can’t be protected from seemingly friendly Muslim American brethren in Killeen, Tex., what are the odds of survival for the 40,000 more troops the hawks want to deploy to Kabul and sinkholes beyond?

About the only prominent voice among the liberal-bashing, Obama-loathing right who has noted this gaping contradiction is Mark Steyn of National Review. “Members of the best trained, best equipped fighting force on the planet” were “gunned down by a guy who said a few goofy things no one took seriously,” he wrote. “And that’s the problem: America has the best troops and fiercest firepower, but no strategy for throttling the ideology that drives the enemy – in Afghanistan and in Texas.” You have to applaud Steyn’s rare intellectual consistency within his camp. One imagines that he does not buy the notion that our Army, however brilliant, has a shot at building “strong personal relationships” with a population that often regards us as occupiers and infidels.

In a week of horrific news, it was good to hear at the end of it that Obama is dissatisfied with the four Afghanistan options he has been weighing so far. The more time he deliberates, the more he is learning that he’s on a fool’s errand with no exit. After Karzai was spared a runoff last month and declared the winner of the fraud-infested August “election,” Obama demanded that he address his government’s corruption as a price for American support. Only days later the Afghan president mocked the American president by parading his most tainted cronies on camera and granting an interview to PBS’s “NewsHour” devoted to spewing his contempt for his American benefactors.

Matthew Hoh, a former Marine and, until recently, a State Department official in Afghanistan, could be found on MSNBC on Thursday once again asking the question no war advocate can answer, “Do you want Americans fighting and dying for the Karzai regime?” Hoh quit his post on principle in September despite the urging of colleagues, including our ambassador there, Karl W. Eikenberry, that he stay and fight over war policy from the inside. But Hoh had lost confidence in our strategy and would not retract his resignation. Now he has been implicitly seconded by Eikenberry himself. Last week we learned that the ambassador, a retired general who had been the top American military commander in Afghanistan as recently as 2007, had sent two cables to Obama urging caution about sending more troops.

We don’t know everything in those cables. What we do know is that American intelligence continues to say that fewer than 100 Qaeda operatives can still be found in Afghanistan. We also know that the Taliban, which are currently estimated to number in the tens of thousands, can’t be eliminated. As McChrystal put it to Filkins, there is no “finite number” of Taliban, so there’s no way to vanquish them. Hence his counterinsurgency alternative, which could take decades, costing untold billions and countless lives.

Perhaps those on the right are correct about Hasan, and he is just one cog in an apocalyptic jihadist plot that has infiltrated our armed forces. If so, then they have an obligation to explain how pouring more troops into Afghanistan would have stopped Hasan from plotting in Killeen. Don’t hold your breath. If we have learned anything concrete so far from the massacre at Fort Hood, it’s that our hawks, for all their certitude, are as utterly confused as the rest of us about who it is we’re fighting in Afghanistan and to what end.

© 2009 The New York Times
Frank Rich is a regular columnist for The New York Times. He is the author of many books, including The Great Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina.