******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Ridiculous Speculation That "Oath Keepers" Behind Fort Hood Attack

After the Bill Sparkman incident, in which the left-wing blogosphere immediately blamed tea party attendees and conservatives for Sparkman's (as yet unsolved) death, even this shocked me. Digby at Hullabaloo:

I have no idea what happened at Ft Hood. They've confirmed that the perpetrators were military. They don't know the reason for the killings. CNN's military correspondent Barbara Starr says there an incredible amount of stress and PTSD at the post, the biggest in the Army, although she has no particular information.(And since most soldiers have some level of PTSD after multiple deployments, it's far too broad of a category to mean anything in this context.)

Regardless of motivation one would certainly hope, above all, that this [note added by LI: this link is to an "Oathkeepers" website] had nothing to do with it. It's pretty awful that one's thoughts would immediately turn in that direction when something like this happens. But after Tim McVeigh, you have to consider it. (If the shooters were civilians, my thoughts would go in a different direction.)
Let's see how this plays out, what the specific motives were, and who else, if anyone, was behind it. But this stuff is ridiculous.

It turns out that the shooter has a Muslim name, but that proves nothing other than that he has a Muslim name. Fox News is interviewing a soldier who knew the shooter, and who is attributing anti-U.S., religious comments to the shooter, but we'll see what an investigation proves.

It may be that this has a religious or political motive, or it may be that the person was just crazy, or some combination of the two.

If the evidence is that this was a political and religious shooting, we should not hesitate to say so. But don't engage in the sort of politicized speculation we saw in the Sparkman case.

UPDATE: The partial mea culpa:

I regret speculating about the Oathers in the early minutes of the story. It was the first thing that jumped to my mind when I heard about it being multiple shooters who were members of the military. Obviously, that speculation was wrong and it cast aspersions on the Oathers who had nothing to do with this. It's hard for me to see how that little link, along with all the disclaimers that went with it, puts me in the same category as the lunatics, but if it does, so be it. Just call me Atlas.... 11.05.09 - 10:18 pm.

UPDATE No. 2: Jules Crittenden, says Jackass 101

--------------------------------------------
Related Posts:
Ghouls Preparing To Dance on Sparkman's Grave
Taking Advantage of The Holocaust Museum Shooting
Give The Man His Due, and A Tip

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

11 comments:

  1. I can hardly concur with your assertion that a Muslim name "proves nothing." In fact, it confirms our worst fears -- Namely: That our military is apparently honeycombed with an unknown number of America-hating jihadis of the MUSLIM faith. (As you will recall, in the early days of the Iraq invasion, a Muslim soldier rolled a hand grenade into a tent full of sleeping officers.) Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, for gawd's sake.

    Have they no sense of decorum?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now that we know that the main shooter has a Muslim name, we can assume that officials will adhere to precedent by announcing that this clearly was not an act of terror... and then investigate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hassan's cousin has confirmed that Hassan (the shooter) has been a Muslim all of his life and tht he was antagonistic towards the US for its efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think his motives were probably a mixture of some sort of mental breakdown that led to a Muslim outcome (sudden jihad syndrome).

    ReplyDelete
  5. balls.

    The guy is a doctor, who went to medical school on the Army's nickel. Depending on specifics, that means he owes the Army eight to ten years of service to pay back the schooling. They had him at Walter Reed, being paid going rate rather than rank-related, for six years -- then decided he had to earn it by going to Hood and treating people with, you know, real problems. It pissed him off to the point of shooting people. The only thing "Muslim" had to do with it is that maybe it made him a little quicker to choose shooting infidels as an anger-management tool.

    Regards,
    Ric

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm absolutely positive Hasan voted for John McCain so somewhere in this story is a right wing extremist truth. This concludes my Obot Drone thought for the day as inspired by David Axelrod and his Puppet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is also understood that he was to be deployed to Iraq.

    Others have reported that the FBI was already investigating him for comments on the Internet. On top of that he was apparently investigated for certain jihadist style remarks.

    He was a psychiatrist at Ft. Hood.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually it's looking like Sparkman's death was a suicide:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_census_worker_hanged

    ReplyDelete
  9. the only good thing about him being alive, other than that he might die a lingering death from MRSA and complications is that the UCMJ still allows executions for things like this.

    how about a poll: hanging or firing squad?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some leftists leave no politically exploitive stone unturned to attempt discrediting a group like the Oathkeepers...

    then being called on it, replies like a school boy.... in effect, 'so sue me'

    typical of the 6 year old mentality of bloggers like Digby...

    ReplyDelete
  11. MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 300 viewers of a news clip featuring the Oath Keepers organization. Results found that majority of viewers (53%) felt that armed militia groups should be outlawed in the United States. The percentage of viewers that support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, declined from 80% to 73% after viewing the video. In addition, more than one-third of the viewers (37%) reported that the existence of the Oath Keepers organization causes them to feel less safe.
    http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J7647-OathKeepers/Index.cfm
    Thanks,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete