Point taken... But, like, we've spent at least the last twenty years telling them to shut up and deal with things... Drugs and sex and underpaid, incompetent volunteer services. Who expected rhetorical leadership, or even just bluntness, in this report?

Why are people still falling all over themselves to keep "Muslim" out of the equation? Not a rhetorical question, I'm really asking. I can't help but think that if a Christian fundamentalist went on a killing spree on a military base in the name of his faith, that would be all over the news as a major component. It's like people are saying, "Why, yes, now that you mention it, he was Muslim and may have been on the internet lauding suicide bombers as heroes, but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it."
And why are they keeping his name out of it? Others, like the Duke lacrosse players, who turned out to be (fairly) innocent, aren't extended that privilege. I happen to share a first name with a man who killed someone in a fast food restaurant in Cambridge in 1991, and I was made fun of for weeks for having that name. Why keep Hasan's name out because of his religion?
The Army does seem apologetic here, but about all the wrong things.

"The report ignores the elephant in the room - radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy", says Republican Representative John Carter (whose district includes Fort Hood) "We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you've done something offensive to society"

ISLAM is the enemy, just as it has been since 622 AD. When even the guy trying to point out the elephant in the room can't actually see the elephant in the room, you know you're doomed.

Obviously 13 (should be 14) dead was not enough. Even 3000 dead was not enough. Even a mushroom cloud over the White House would probably not be enough to get politicians to stop genuflecting to that pedophile's cult of death.

Even a mushroom cloud over the White House would probably not be enough to get politicians to stop genuflecting to that pedophile's cult of death.

I didn't think the report said "A Muslim who likes having sex with under-age children"...?

I read something a while back that suggested the media has an important role to play in shootings. Because things get dramatised; because the police roar up with all sirens blaring; because the culprit's name is mentioned and repeated; because the culprit's face is shown on the news channels again and again; because people talk and talk and talk about why it happened, the next shooting becomes inevitable.

Without ignoring what happens, if as little attention as possible is given to it in the public domain, the opportunities for glamour or martyrdom massively lower. Perhaps that's what the guys in the military were trying to do?

(I'm not entirely in agreement with myself; just providing an alternative!)

Donald, I see your point. However, I still think they could do that without omitting important information, like the identity of the perpetrator. They won't even use his name in the reports! They don't even have to mention his religion at all, if they are THAT concerened with offending muslims. All they would have to do is say his name. I fail to understand how actually using his real name would offend anyone. He WAS the person who killed 14 people in Fort Hood. Why should we hide that fact?

Denial.

"genuflecting to that pedophile's cult of death.

Think he's referring to Mohammed here.

This makes no sense to me. We all know who did it, what point is there in keeping his name out of the report?

I *really* hate political correctness.

Ann -

It's like feeding your friends to a crocodile hoping it will get full and leave.

In reality, you're just guaranteeing that you'll be eaten last.

Would a Congressman in 1942 have felt compelled to hedge with so many qualifiers, for fear of causing offense? "Radical Japanese Imperialism is the enemy! Extremist German National Socialists are the enemy!"?

You'll note that the other side is always perfectly clear & concise when they talk about their enemies: "Infidels! Crusaders! Zionists! Unbelievers!" Why do we always have to use at least 3 words, at least one of which must be a euphemism?

Think he's referring to Mohammed here.

Gotcha.

However, I still think they could do that without omitting important information, like the identity of the perpetrator. They won't even use his name in the reports!

This is my point re: the glamour of what this guy has done. Anyone else feeling a little depressed and wanting to pop their name onto the front pages of the newspapers has just got himself the manner in which to do so. If the papers and the television etc. refuse to give the name of this man - and, honestly, what's the benefit to us of knowing what his name was? - then people considering the same thing may just see that they're on their way to a lonely and unmarked passing - they're not going to be martyrs, glamourised to the public in any way.

This makes no sense to me. We all know who did it, what point is there in keeping his name out of the report?

Again, by giving his name, he becomes a suddenly exciting and interesting media figure. Keeping him out of the media makes him a no-one. This is good. It prevents other people thinking it's clever.

It prevents other people thinking it's clever - donald

Perhaps, but it doesnt stop them from doing it.

Want proof? name 3 out of the last hunndered or so suicide bombers who had their names published.

Interesting contrast in the way the Army is handling this, to the approach taken 15 - 20 years ago when it was learned that certain White Supremist groups were having their members enlist to receive weapons training, training in tactics, logistics, etc. The orders came down to identify such persons and eliminate them from the service -- which was done with complete efficiency.

Privacy concerns? Response: "If the Army wants you to have privacy, it will issue that to you."

Constitutional rights? Response: "If the Army wants you to have rights, it will issue some to you."

Overall attitude: "Give your soul to Jesus, because the Army owns your butt -- and there's plenty more where you came from."

But, then again, in those days, if a Soldier had a Conceal/Carry Weapons permit from the state in which the Army base was located, a Soldier was allowed to carry a firearm on base. Pres. Clinton, in light of his vast military experience, changed that to make carrying a firearm on a military facility a criminal offense, regardless of compliance with the law of the surrounding state (although, that law generally applies in all other respects), changing Soldiers on base into soft targets, much like students on a college campus.

Anyone else feeling a little depressed and wanting to pop their name onto the front pages of the newspapers

He didn't do it b/c he was depressed; that was just lefty media damage control. He did it b/c he is a Muslim who wished to fulfill the requirement to wage jihad.

Needless to say, the military should be the last place in the world for PC to rear its stifling head. Of course MAJOR NIDAL HASAN's RADICAL MUSLIM VIEWS had something to do with the problem. His little choo-choo may have indeed chugged around the bend, but you can bet the train's various engineers were probably quite familiar with the Verse of the Sword.

@donald: As long as the next Christian Identity or White Supremacist thug who infiltrates the military and does something similar is downplayed in the same manner by the Pentagon, I will be wiling to accept your thesis.

Obviously this cover-up is being perpetrated by Liberal PC thugs in the Pentagon. There's so many of them, you know.

I just finished reading "Extreme Measures" by Vince Flynn. Total fiction about jihadists getting into the heart of DC and exploding several bombs, breaching the security of the NCTC (National CounterTerrorism Center), and the undercover CIA operatives who try to thwart their plans. Who had been brought up on charges by the Judiciary Committee for using "extreme measures" on a prisoner (who happened to be a very highly connected Taliban officer), whose chairwoman just happens to believe that the letter of the law must be adhered to and all prisoners be given the rights of the Geneva Conventions, even those prisoners who are terrorists. She pretty much gets her ass handed to her on a silver platter, in light of the bombings. Too bad it's fiction. The book makes a great point as to why those who do not acknowledge the Geneva Conventions should NOT be given protection under it. Terrorists give no quarter, why should it be given to them?

"Terrorists give no quarter, why should it be given to them?"

Good question. Class? Anyone want to explain the difference between a society governed by the rule of law and a cave full of suicide-bombing clitorectomy fetishists?

The only diference is means of justification gog.

IF we had a trade trade treaty with china that they stopped abiding by would we continue to uphold our end? Of course not.

The geneva convention in a treaty, people who dont acknowlege it do not get its protection.

Thats not to say I advocate cutting off fingers to get info. But I'd have no problem shoveling pig shit on a few korans in front of prisoners - somethin that would be illegal under the conventions