Mass Shooting at Fort Hood

[raindog]

While only American citizens are protected by our Constitution,

Oy, if only that were true. Anyone in our borders is protected - which is why we have Guantanamo. The moment J. Akbar Terrorist steps foot on domestic soil, all of the constitutional protections apply.

Unfortunately, there is this notion that you can divorce culture and law. I just don't think it works. Our system worked well until the 1960s because we had a common culture. Once the globalist liberal idiots began to run amuck, our system began to break down, which is why we've been on a decline since then.

Thanks a lot, baby boomers!

 

[Trlsmn]

You are using a word out of context. It does not help your argument when you do not understand the words you are using. I suspect you don't understand what the word "racist" means.

You are describing bigotry or prejudice, perhaps. One of those may be the word you want to use.

Someone who is bigoted against blacks or Asians is racist.

Someone who is bigoted against Catholics, Masons, or Red Sox fans is not.



Regarding Jews...the Jews are an ethnicity and a religion (Judaism). Not all ethnic Jews practice Judaism. Not all those who practice Judaism are ethnic Jews (for example, an Irishman who converted). There is a very high degree of overlap, but they are two distinct things.

It is quite possible to be biased against the Japanese without being racist. I have a great uncle who was tortured by the Japanese during WWII and he won't drive a Japanese car or talk to Japanese people. He may be bigoted, but in his case it truly is Japanese ethnicity, not Asians in general (he has zero problems with Chinese, Koreans, etc.) I'm not endorsing his viewpoint, just using it as an illustration.



I'm sorry, but this is just absurd.

I know quite a bit about Islam, and in fact had Islamic relatives on my wife's side in my first marriage, living in Tatarstan. They were mainly interested in working and feeding their kids like many people, but if you asked them, they'd tell you that we in the West live in dar-Al-Harb - the house of the sword, where Islam must be spread.

My dislike for Islam, and my recognition of it as an anti-Western, warlike, hate-mongering culture does not make me a "redneck". My "anti-Islamic thing" has nothing to do with skin color. I have friends who are from the same countries as the Arabs - Egypt, Syria, etc. They are Sephardic Jews and by looks alone, you couldn't tell them apart from Arab Muslims. In fact, these Jews have lived in these countries for longer than Islam existed there.

It's not about race. It's about culture. I have nothing but love for Sephardic Jews, most of whom are righteous liberty-loving people who'd be very much at home as Reagan Republicans (if they lived in the US). On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the anti-Semitic, warlike Muslims who look just like them. See? Not about race.

The idea that America has to be melting pot where we throw open our doors to every nationality in the world is ridiculous and a product of liberalism. Historically, we had heavy immigration from Europe - our closest cultural cousins. The idea that we must import, tolerate, and celebrate Islam is absurd. The idea that we must tear down and destroy our culture on the altar of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is likewise absurd.

There is nothing wrong with saying that Islam is incompatible with American values. I would have thought 9/11 would have taught us something.

By the way, try going to Saudi Arabia with a Bible in your suitcase sometime and let me know how that works out for you.

Raindog you have just hit it a home run with the bases loaded! That is as clear and understandable explanation as I have heard yet! I'm cutting and pasting this for later use.

 

[cameronhu]

Oy, if only that were true. Anyone in our borders is protected - which is why we have Guantanamo. The moment J. Akbar Terrorist steps foot on domestic soil, all of the constitutional protections apply.

Unfortunately, there is this notion that you can divorce culture and law. I just don't think it works. Our system worked well until the 1960s because we had a common culture. Once the globalist liberal idiots began to run amuck, our system began to break down, which is why we've been on a decline since then.

Thanks a lot, baby boomers!

Wow. Really? You think that our system "worked well" until the 60's, and then it started to decline? Womens rights? Civil rights? Wave after wave of prejudice against immigrants; Irish, German, Eastern-Europeans, Asians... Two world wars we joined in so late in the game we almost doomed ourselves? What decades prior to the 60s were so great that you would want to return to them?

I suppose if you could roll back time and erase things like computers, communications systems, airplanes, ICBMs and the like, you could in some way limit the amount of "globalist" thinking you needed. But until that happens, my money is on the "globalist liberal idiots." They seem to be a bit more realistic than the "separatist conservative idiots".

 

[raindog]

Wow. Really? You think that our system "worked well" until the 60's, and then it started to decline?

Yes. America's civilization peaked in the 1960s.

Womens rights? Civil rights? Wave after wave of prejudice against immigrants; Irish, German, Eastern-Europeans, Asians... Two world wars we joined in so late in the game we almost doomed ourselves? What decades prior to the 60s were so great that you would want to return to them?

Wait...we joined two world wars "so late in the game" that we "almost doomed ourselves"? The world wars only got "late in the game" because we joined. Sheesh. Did I miss something about Korea and Viet Nam? The United States has not been isolationist since the 30s.

Civil rights, women's rights, etc. were all in place by 1969.

The problem was atheistic liberalism, which blossomed into socialism in the 1960s and has haunted us ever since. Patriotism became square, self-reliance was viewed as outmoded, drug use became commonplace, and disrespect for tradition became cool.

Take this as an example...I have three different relatives, who lived in three different parts of the USA, who taught school in the 1950s. Class sizes of 40+ were not unusual and 50+ not unheard of due to the baby boom. They all report that those classes were easy to handle because the kids were respectful, disciplined, and well-trained by their parents. Today teachers with classes of 30 melt under the strain. What's the difference? A decline in our culture.

I suppose if you could roll back time and erase things like computers, communications systems, airplanes, ICBMs and the like, you could in some way limit the amount of "globalist" thinking you needed.

What are you talking about?:huh: I was talking about our society, not our technology. Yes, technology has advanced. (BTW, everything you mentioned except possibly ICBMs, was invented in the USA.)

However, 50 years ago, we had schools that functioned, taxes were a lot lower, gun rights were a lot more secure, criminals went to prison, we didn't have a whole sub-class of drug heads, the nation wasn't flooded with cheap illegal labor, you could put the ten commandments on a courthouse sign without being sued, the government was several orders of magnitude smaller, the airwaves were not filled with pornography, and middle class Americans had a reasonable expectation of getting a good job and living a good life.

Today we have high taxes, huge government, a sewer culture, a nation of soft dependents, socialism as a goal, revolving-door courthouses, schools that can't educate, routine terrorism, television parents can't let their kids watch, atheism programmed by Hollywood, presidents who testify about their perversions...do I really have to go on?

And that's without getting into economics...although I haven't researched it definitively, my factory worker uncles without even a high school education had a higher standard of living than grad-school-educated me.

 

[cameronhu]

You are using a word out of context. It does not help your argument when you do not understand the words you are using. I suspect you don't understand what the word "racist" means.

You are describing bigotry or prejudice, perhaps. One of those may be the word you want to use.

Someone who is bigoted against blacks or Asians is racist.

Someone who is bigoted against Catholics, Masons, or Red Sox fans is not.



Regarding Jews...the Jews are an ethnicity and a religion (Judaism). Not all ethnic Jews practice Judaism. Not all those who practice Judaism are ethnic Jews (for example, an Irishman who converted). There is a very high degree of overlap, but they are two distinct things.

It is quite possible to be biased against the Japanese without being racist. I have a great uncle who was tortured by the Japanese during WWII and he won't drive a Japanese car or talk to Japanese people. He may be bigoted, but in his case it truly is Japanese ethnicity, not Asians in general (he has zero problems with Chinese, Koreans, etc.) I'm not endorsing his viewpoint, just using it as an illustration.



I'm sorry, but this is just absurd.

I know quite a bit about Islam, and in fact had Islamic relatives on my wife's side in my first marriage, living in Tatarstan. They were mainly interested in working and feeding their kids like many people, but if you asked them, they'd tell you that we in the West live in dar-Al-Harb - the house of the sword, where Islam must be spread.

My dislike for Islam, and my recognition of it as an anti-Western, warlike, hate-mongering culture does not make me a "redneck". My "anti-Islamic thing" has nothing to do with skin color. I have friends who are from the same countries as the Arabs - Egypt, Syria, etc. They are Sephardic Jews and by looks alone, you couldn't tell them apart from Arab Muslims. In fact, these Jews have lived in these countries for longer than Islam existed there.

It's not about race. It's about culture. I have nothing but love for Sephardic Jews, most of whom are righteous liberty-loving people who'd be very much at home as Reagan Republicans (if they lived in the US). On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the anti-Semitic, warlike Muslims who look just like them. See? Not about race.

The idea that America has to be melting pot where we throw open our doors to every nationality in the world is ridiculous and a product of liberalism. Historically, we had heavy immigration from Europe - our closest cultural cousins. The idea that we must import, tolerate, and celebrate Islam is absurd. The idea that we must tear down and destroy our culture on the altar of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism" is likewise absurd.

There is nothing wrong with saying that Islam is incompatible with American values. I would have thought 9/11 would have taught us something.

By the way, try going to Saudi Arabia with a Bible in your suitcase sometime and let me know how that works out for you.

This is very well articulated, and I thank you for it. I'm in what most would consider the pretty-close-to-atheist camp myself, so in a lot of ways I see very few differences between many religions - in so far as they are practiced inconsistently.

Just because your holy text says X, doesn't mean even 20% of it's practitioners are going to follow it. Look at the divorce rate in this country if you want an example.

So I try and focus more on the individual than on the religion of the individual. And more still on the actions of that individual rather than his words.

And I don't see a lot of American Muslims out killing people. Praying, yes. Fasting, yes. Drinking on occasion, yes. Killing folks, no.

Sure there are some bad eggs- But there have been bad eggs in every major religion. Christianity hasn't set a stellar example, truth be told.

 

[cameronhu]

RAINDOG-

Too damn many quotes to deal with.

1) respectfully disagree about America's civilization peaking in the 60s, although you did pick the Kennedy/Johnson decade, so I can't disagree too much

2) disagree about being isolationist until only the 30s - We waited before getting involved in both the World Wars, which was risky in the extreme. It has been debated about whether or not FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor ahead of time but allowed it to happen so we could enter the war. Regardless of it validity, it points to the fact that there was sufficient opposition to the US entering the war that many consider it plausible.

3) Korea and Vietnam- Didn't think bringing them up contributed to your theory that things were rosy in the 50s and 60s.

3) The rights you mention being in place in the late 60s were seldom enforced until the 70s

4) Perhaps the single greatest decline in our culture has been the fact that both parents in the home now work outside the home. I'm fortunate in the fact that my wife stays home with the kids while I work. Of the people my age that I know, only one other's wife does this. Why? If you have ideas on this, I'd like to hear them.

5) My references to technology were to point to the fact that it's damn near impossible not to think globally when the world is so completely interconnected, and that it's too late to put that genie back in the bottle. I see few alternatives to adapting.


6) C'mon things aren't that bad I agree with you that in many cases this nation is morally bankrupt. I tend to blame it on "credit," greed, instant gratification and the lack of a strong sense of community.


--- oh, has anyone heard any unbiased news regarding the mass shooting at Fort Hood?

 

[Jamie6.5]

RAINDOG-

Too damn many quotes to deal with.

1) respectfully disagree about America's civilization peaking in the 60s, although you did pick the Kennedy/Johnson decade, so I can't disagree too much

No doubt Cam. Those two shepherded in the downturn. Whata "great society" it brought us!

2) disagree about being isolationist until only the 30s - We waited before getting involved in both the World Wars, which was risky in the extreme. It has been debated about whether or not FDR knew the Japanese were going to bomb Pearl Harbor ahead of time but allowed it to happen so we could enter the war. Regardless of it validity, it points to the fact that there was sufficient opposition to the US entering the war that many consider it plausible.

Brought about no doubt by that great forecaster Joe Kennedy, (father of the above mentioned John F,... The shepherd) Our ambassador that repeatedly told FDR that Hitler was an okay guy and that Churchill has his panties in a wad over nothing.

3) Korea and Vietnam- Didn't think bringing them up contributed to your theory that things were rosy in the 50s and 60s.

Ike warned us all what would happen if we didn't pay attention. LBJ ignored him. Try reading Mandate for Change. LBJ was too busy making himself rich(er)

4) Perhaps the single greatest decline in our culture has been the fact that both parents in the home now work outside the home. I'm fortunate in the fact that my wife stays home with the kids while I work. Of the people my age that I know, only one other's wife does this. Why? If you have ideas on this, I'd like to hear them.

Another situation brought about by the "Great Society." Business and individuals so heavily taxed that real income dropped to the point where only the addition of a second income could cover expenses.
Nice try tho.

5) My references to technology were to point to the fact that it's damn near impossible not to think globally when the world is so completely interconnected, and that it's too late to put that genie back in the bottle. I see few alternatives to adapting.

Ahhh the ol' "genie back in the bottle" analogy. Coming to a gun "turn in" near you!

6) C'mon things aren't that bad I agree with you that in many cases this nation is morally bankrupt. I tend to blame it on "credit," greed, instant gratification and the lack of a strong sense of community.

Yup, lack of a strong sense of community or family. Brought about by progressive thinkers like Hillary that, in 1992-93, was advocating for children to be able to sue their parents. The NEA that takes away the ability to discipline or punish students, diverting blame and throwing out accountability and self reliance. You know, all that good progressive thinking!

--- oh, has anyone heard any unbiased news regarding the mass shooting at Fort Hood?

You'll have to go to the BBC for that!

 

[cameronhu]

You'll have to go to the BBC for that!

You ain't knockin' the BBC, are you?

I know "liberal" seems to be a derogatory term around here- And I can understand why many believe that to be the case. But there are a number of us who are profoundly liberal when it comes to rights, but very conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. - I would put myself pretty firmly in this camp.

I don't see how adopting a global perspective and awareness in any way will bring about a "gun turn-in near you." I mean, the NeoCon ideal of "Spreading Democracy" is by no means an isolationist policy.

As for "needing" to have both parents work due to a lack of real income- Well, I'd question this. How many of our parents "needed" 3500+ sq ft homes? Or "needed" luxury cars? People go through automobiles these days like designer clothes... What ever happened to driving your car until it broke, and then _fixing_it? Why do people "need" more than one television? Or any one of the number of things people today feel they "need"?

 

[Gunner3456]

I know "liberal" seems to be a derogatory term around here- And I can understand why many believe that to be the case. But there are a number of us who are profoundly liberal when it comes to rights, but very conservative when it comes to fiscal policy. - I would put myself pretty firmly in this camp.

That confuses the heck out of me. Liberals want to take your gun rights and your rights to keep what you earn. They want wealth redistribution and higher taxes and more government. How does that protect your rights?

I don't see how adopting a global perspective and awareness in any way will bring about a "gun turn-in near you." I mean, the NeoCon ideal of "Spreading Democracy" is by no means an isolationist policy.

We aren't spreading democracy, and we ourselves aren't a democracy. We are a republic of states and always have been, but that ideal is being stolen from us. This global machine which is roaring down upon us is exporting our jobs to enrich communist and socialist countries so they will "like" us and to be "fair." Never mind that we built our wealth on capitalism which created our industry and our jobs which are now being exported.

We are trying to fundamentally change our country and we are exporting our jobs, borrowing money from communist and socialist countries which hate us, and generally losing what we once had. They way to bring other countries out of poverty is to insist that they do what we did to build our great nation. That would be to embrace capitalism (everyone free to excel in the marketplace) and to embrace freedom and small government.

Let the individual be free. Let the individual thrive. Expect the individual to be responsible for himself. We've forgotten all about that and we are going down the tube because of it. We may never recover from the waste and debt and heavy weight of government in our country.

 

[cameronhu]

Gunner3456-

I don't make these terms up. "Spreading Democracy" - That's pure NeoCon. I agree we aren't spreading democracy. Not sure it would be a good idea. Positive it's spread is inconsistent. And agree 100% we are a republic.

"Liberal" - I've never really considered myself liberal, but that's what a lot of folks say I am when I mention I'm pro-gay rights, anti-abortion ban (which I see as _very_ different from being pro-abortion), anti-capital punishment (don't trust the legal system enough to give them that kind of power), anti-flag burning amendment, and pro-health care reform (In my mind, education, health, defense and transportation should be the _only_ things a government should be spending money on). I don't believe in Social Security, I don't believe in high taxes, I don't believe in welfare. I liked Reagan and I like Obama. The rest in between were worthless.

So, you tell me- Am I "liberal"?

 

[Gunner3456]

Gunner3456-

I don't make these terms up. "Spreading Democracy" - That's pure NeoCon. I agree we aren't spreading democracy. Not sure it would be a good idea. Positive it's spread is inconsistent. And agree 100% we are a republic.

"Liberal" - I've never really considered myself liberal, but that's what a lot of folks say I am when I mention I'm pro-gay rights, anti-abortion ban (which I see as _very_ different from being pro-abortion), anti-capital punishment (don't trust the legal system enough to give them that kind of power), anti-flag burning amendment, and pro-health care reform (In my mind, education, health, defense and transportation should be the _only_ things a government should be spending money on). I don't believe in Social Security, I don't believe in high taxes, I don't believe in welfare. I liked Reagan and I like Obama. The rest in between were worthless.

So, you tell me- Am I "liberal"?

You don't like welfare but you don't mind taking my hard-earned money to pay for others' health care? You don't like high taxes and you like Obama. So if not high taxes, how are we going to pay for this massive new debt of Obama's?

Do you realize that every child born in America today is already $300,000 in debt? Do you realize that a family of four is in debt $1,200,000 (that's one million, two hundred thousand dollars) for its share of our total debt and unfunded liabilities?

This debt has been incurred by "entitlements." Now we want trillions more in debt for health care? It will have to be debt because we don't have the money.

What good do all of these "entitlements" do us if we bankrupt our country?

We are cruising for a catastrophe. Better get ready to defend yourself and yours, and to be self sufficient. It's coming, exactly as it hit Venezuela in 2001. They still haven't recovered.

 

[cameronhu]

You don't like welfare but you don't mind taking my hard-earned money to pay for others' health care?

In my mind it's pointless to protect the country from foreign invaders when we're dropping like flies from disease, and I can't get into an emergency room for an actual emergency because it's packed with folks who can't see a doctor because of their lack of insurance.

I don't like paying taxes. But I'm willing to pay taxes for some things- those I mentioned. As much as I think the space program is great for expanding our horizons, I don't think it's a government priority. I love art, but the NEA isn't a priority. Our standing (spreading) army is _way_ to big. The war in Iraq? And its rebuilding? A lot of tax dollars in my mind for not.

You don't like high taxes and you like Obama. So if not high taxes, how are we going to pay for this massive new debt of Obama's?

By cutting every other program out there with the exception of those I mentioned. By creating a simple tax code. By doing away with the billions of dollars we spend overseas to support other countries. I've got other ideas, if your interested...

Do you realize that every child born in America today is already $300,000 in debt? Do you realize that a family of four is in debt $1,200,000 (that's one million, two hundred thousand dollars) for its share of our total debt and unfunded liabilities?

This debt has been incurred by "entitlements." Now we want trillions more in debt for health care? It will have to be debt because we don't have the money.

What good do all of these "entitlements" do us if we bankrupt our country?

Yes. I realize this. Just because you've spent all your money on tricking out your car with fancy rims, a big stereo and all manner of other junk, doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the engine when it breaks. My approach would be to fix the engine, and start selling off everything not absolutely needed to get the car from point a to point b.

I understand that not everyone believes health care is a priority, but I think it is a core priority, and I would as soon see most other government programs be bubblegum-canned in favor of universal coverage.

 

[Gunner3456]

In my mind it's pointless to protect the country from foreign invaders when we're dropping like flies from disease, and I can't get into an emergency room for an actual emergency because it's packed with folks who can't see a doctor because of their lack of insurance.

All hospitals triage patients the minute they arrive. If all you have is the sniffles you go to the back of the list. True emergencies are dealt with immediately. When did you hear of a gunshot victim dying in an emergency room because no one would care for him. Huh??

I don't like paying taxes. But I'm willing to pay taxes for some things- those I mentioned. As much as I think the space program is great for expanding our horizons, I don't think it's a government priority. I love art, but the NEA isn't a priority. Our standing (spreading) army is _way_ to big. The war in Iraq? And its rebuilding? A lot of tax dollars in my mind for not.

I can't disagree with those points, but they have nothing to do with confiscating my money to pay for your health care.

By cutting every other program out there with the exception of those I mentioned. By creating a simple tax code. By doing away with the billions of dollars we spend overseas to support other countries. I've got other ideas, if your interested...

I can't disagree with those points, but they have nothing to do with confiscating my money to pay for your health care.

Yes. I realize this. Just because you've spent all your money on tricking out your car with fancy rims, a big stereo and all manner of other junk, doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the engine when it breaks. My approach would be to fix the engine, and start selling off everything not absolutely needed to get the car from point a to point b.

I can't disagree with those points, but they have nothing to do with confiscating my money to pay for your health care.

I understand that not everyone believes health care is a priority, but I think it is a core priority, and I would as soon see most other government programs be bubblegum-canned in favor of universal coverage.

I will agree with getting rid of most government programs, but not with adding another one which confiscates my money which I earned to give it to someone else who didn't earn it.

Also, I can't name a single program which the feds operate efficiently or on budget. Not one. Amtrack. The post office. Every bloated program I can think of would be on my list.

Why would I think those losers could run health care when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are horribly in the red and in real danger of going broke?

I think what we really need is a whole new federal government, shrunk down to what the constitution allows of it.

 

[Partsproduction]

I think what we really need is a whole new federal government, shrunk down to what the constitution allows of it.

I agree in concept, however I don't think it's realistic in our modern world. The defense of our land alone would prevent that, since the original Constitution limited any standing army (I'm being generous here) and since the early 1900's transportation advances mean a militia, while a winning concept, would not be powerful enough to stand off any modern foreign army. I don't think it would be impossible to come up with a constitutionally workable small sized standing army to maintain equipment, continually train and to hand off authority to a citizen militia.

That's just one area that would take a lot of work to achieve results within the original budget parameters.

I'm pretty sure the UN wouldn't get any money.

 

[raindog]

"Liberal" - I've never really considered myself liberal, but that's what a lot of folks say I am when I mention I'm pro-gay rights, anti-abortion ban (which I see as _very_ different from being pro-abortion), anti-capital punishment (don't trust the legal system enough to give them that kind of power), anti-flag burning amendment, and pro-health care reform (In my mind, education, health, defense and transportation should be the _only_ things a government should be spending money on).

Some people draw a distinction between fiscal liberal/conservative and social liberal/conservative. One could be very libertarian in social matters (anything goes) and yet be very fiscally conservative...supposedly, 1970s and 1980s moderate Republicans were that way, though they've mostly died out.

I've known people who were

• conservative both socially and fiscally
• liberal both socially and fiscally
• liberal socially and conservative fiscally (this describes libertarians)
• a few who were conservative socially but liberal fiscally (some Catholics and moderate Christians who want traditional values but a big safety net)

Personally, I don't care for analyzing politics this way because (a) it assumes that one can play chinese menu, and (b) assumes that culture and law are mutually exclusive which I do not agree with, but it's a popular system in poli sci circles.

I don't believe in Social Security, I don't believe in high taxes, I don't believe in welfare.

Then you might want to change your views on government-provided health care ;-)

 

[slideglider]

Questions That Must Be Asked

by Michael Gaddy
​

To this point in time the only evidence that has been presented concerning the terrible murders at Fort Hood has been that presented by accomplished liars and killers of innocent people: the government. To detail and list the lies of the government and its propaganda arm, known as the media, would take more time and space than is available. Need I say more than "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," "Read my lips, no new taxes," "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski," "I am not a crook"; and "all our POWs are home." Web sites abound with documentation of the lies of the state, its leaders and component agencies. What more can be said about killers of the innocent than, Vicki Weaver (shot in the face by FBI agent Lon Horiuchi while holding her infant daughter), Samuel Weaver (14-year-old, shot in the back by US Marshals) and the 80 plus killed at Waco, including 32 children.

Seeing as how government testimony could be impeached in any court not operated and controlled by the state as originating from a pathological and habitual liar, we can assume we will never be privileged to the truth in this matter, but it would be informative to have the following questions answered; questions I am sure we will never hear asked by the MSM.

We know Hasan graduated from Virginia Tech with a degree in biochemistry from the school’s Center for Applied Behavior Systems, most likely on the taxpayer’s dime. While at Virginia Tech did Hasan have any associations with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); was he in any way associated with them since his graduation, if so, in what capacity? DARPA states on its website, "DARPA programs focus on high-risk research that will have payoffs that could provide dramatic advances in military capabilities." DARPA has been rumored to be associated with the MKULTRA program of mind control and Virginia Tech. Cathy O’Brien stated in her book, Trance-Formation of America that "Virginia Tech is good for two things, engineering and mind control." and that "most of the east coast M.K. Ultra Mind Control experiments happened in this DARPA facility."

Another question that deserves an answer is, "Exactly what position did Major Hasan hold in the U.S. Army’s PSYOP community and how did that relate to his dealings with his patients? Also, what was Major Hasan’s position with the US Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress and how did this relate to his duties with the Army’s Warrior Combat Reset Program? Did Major Hasan’s assignment to Ft. Hood have anything to do with a program the Army initiated to "electronically prepare" soldiers for redeployment to Iraq and Afghanistan?

The number of suicides and murders seen in returning veterans is at an all time high. These numbers have been downplayed and underreported. Have there been any reports within the military dealing with what commanders feel could lead to an inability to continue to prosecute the wars? Recently a report was published stating a significant number of 17–24-year-olds to be unfit for military service. The lack of a qualified pool for entrance into the military will lead to a continuation of multiple redeployments that will lead to more and more suicides, murders and rapes among returning veterans. What steps are being taken to electronically or medically deal with these problems and what was Major Hasan’s role in these programs?

The Department of Homeland Security contacted a Soviet company called Psychotechnology Research Institute in 2007 in its never-ending search to ferret out terrorist suspects. Ironically, this was the same company contacted by the FBI in an effort to assist with the siege at Waco, and was also the entity that was tasked with dealing with Russian soldiers suffering from PTSD upon their return from Afghanistan. The question must be asked, were any of the techniques now being employed by the US military, specifically by Major Hasan, acquired from this Soviet company? Was the software made by this company known as Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology (SSRM Tek) a part of any treatment of American soldiers? It has been reported Russian soldiers being treated with this technology experienced not a remission of battle memories but instead an immersion in those memories which caused several of them to become very violent resulting in the deaths of over 30 of their fellow soldiers.

The great majority of information concerning mind control as a military tool and the cooperation of the Soviets with our military and its efforts at mind control are shrouded in secrecy.

Americans have a right to know what techniques and experiments are being used on their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters who have, or will, experience the horrors of war.

The thought the government would not engage in such activity is preposterous. One need only look before and during the Vietnam War to see what mind control experiments were being conducted, many times against the will of the soldier involved. There is presently a lawsuit filed by attorney Gordon Erspamer in January in Federal District Court in San Francisco against the Army and CIA on behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) and six former soldiers who claim to be survivors of these experiments. Found here is the actual proof these experiments were conducted.

Are we to believe that somewhere between these mind control experiments on both civilians and soldiers, both then and now, the government has acquired a moral compass concerning what it will and will not do to those it considers to be nothing but indentured servants and guinea pigs? Americans can blindly accept the lies of government and continue providing their children to the monster, or begin to demand answers to questions like those posed above.

How long will we continue to compile evidence for Henry Kissinger’s claim that "Soldiers are just dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns of foreign policy?"

November 13, 2009

Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

 

[Gunner3456]

Questions That Must Be Asked

by Michael Gaddy
​

To this point in time the only evidence that has been presented concerning the terrible murders at Fort Hood has been that presented by accomplished liars and killers of innocent people: the government. To detail and list the lies of the government and its propaganda arm, known as the media, would take more time and space than is available. Need I say more than "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction," "Read my lips, no new taxes," "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski," "I am not a crook"; and "all our POWs are home." Web sites abound with documentation of the lies of the state, its leaders and component agencies. What more can be said about killers of the innocent than, Vicki Weaver (shot in the face by FBI agent Lon Horiuchi while holding her infant daughter), Samuel Weaver (14-year-old, shot in the back by US Marshals) and the 80 plus killed at Waco, including 32 children.

-snip-

You haven't been paying attention!!

Fort Hood suspect warned of threats within the ranks
Cited stress facing Muslims Hasan spoke at Walter Reed in 2007​

Link to Washington Post article.


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.

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood warned a roomful of senior Army physicians a year and a half ago that to avoid "adverse events," the military should allow Muslim soldiers to be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting in wars against other Muslims.

As a senior-year psychiatric resident at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was supposed to make a presentation on a medical topic of his choosing as a culminating exercise of the residency program.

Instead, in late June 2007, he stood before his supervisors and about 25 other mental health staff members and lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a copy of the presentation obtained by The Washington Post.

"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," he said in the presentation.

"It was really strange," said one staff member who attended the presentation and spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the investigation of Hasan. "The senior doctors looked really upset" at the end. These medical presentations occurred each Wednesday afternoon, and other students had lectured on new medications and treatment of specific mental illnesses.

An Army spokesman said Monday night he was unaware of the presentation, and a Walter Reed spokesman declined to comment. It is unclear whether anyone in attendance reported the briefing to counterintelligence or law enforcement authorities whose job it is to identify threats from within the military ranks.

Hasan spent six years at Walter Reed as an intern, resident and fellow beginning in 2003. He was transferred to Fort Hood as a practicing psychiatrist in July and was set to leave soon for Afghanistan. According to a relative, he had asked not to be deployed. It is not known whether he ever sought conscientious-objector status.

Maj. Gen. Gina S. Farrisee, the Army's personnel chief, said in an interview Monday that because of the investigation, she and other Army officials could not discuss whether Hasan had officially asked to quit the service or not to be deployed. However, she and another Army official said it would be highly unusual for officers with Hasan's rank and medical training to be allowed to resign, given their service obligation.

Investigators are examining Hasan's religious beliefs, whether he harbored extremist views, and whether he was in contact with others who may have encouraged violence against U.S. troops.

The title of Hasan's PowerPoint presentation was "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." It consisted of 50 slides.

In one slide, Hasan described the presentation's objectives as identifying "what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military."

He also sought to "describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims" who serve in the U.S. military may have and to persuade the Army to identify these individuals.

Other slides delved into the history of Islam, its tenets, statistics about the number of Muslims in the military, and explanations of "offensive jihad," or holy war.

Another slide suggested ways to draw out Muslim troops: "It must be hard for you to balance Islamic beliefs that might be conflicting with current war; feelings of guilt; Is it what you expected."

Hasan's presentation lasted about an hour. It is unclear whether he read out loud every point on each slide. If typical procedures were followed, his adviser would have supervised the development of his project, said people familiar with the practice.

The final three slides indicate that Hasan referred to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, suicide bombers and Iran.

Under a slide titled "Comments," he wrote: "If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc." [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"

Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly -- will vary!"