Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX (UPDATES)
Nov 5th, 2009 | 78 responses
There have been multiple shooting attacks at Fort Hood according to MSNBC, KCEN-TV and KTVT-TV. At least 7 people are dead and 30+ are wounded. One shooter is in custody and 1-2 more are being sought. FBI is on the way. Both the shooters and victims are believed to be military rather than civilians, at least the shooters were wearing military fatigues.
4:30 pm EST: More shots just reported according to MSNBC-TV.
4:40 pm EST per MSNBC: “Two suspects were captured and four swat officers were wounded, NBC News and KCEN, based in Waco, Texas, reported.”
4:48 pm EST per MSNBC: Death toll has gone up to 9 and one of the captured shooters is an Army major with an “Arabic-sounding name.”
4:52 pm: News conference going on now. One shooter reported to have been killed.
4:45 pm: Now I hear that 12 are dead and 31 wounded.
5:01 pm EST: Reportedly the shooters are/were actual US soldiers, not people posing as soldiers.
6:00 pm EST: Suspected gunman, now dead, was Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a recent convert to Islam who was about to be deployed to Iraq and not happy about it.
6:20 pm EST: Hasan was an “Army mental health professional”
6:28 pm EST: Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was promoted to major in May
6:33 pm EST: Reputed to be shooter Hasan’s FB page:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1008970609&ref=nf
6:48 pm EST: Photo being shown now on MSNBC does not look like the guy on the FB page. Name is slightly different as well.
9:55 pm EST: Latest press conference from Ft. Hood, Gen. Cone says that Major Hasan is alive and in stable condition. He is currently believed to be the only shooter, the other soldiers who were detained have been released. Terrorism cannot be ruled out or confirmed.
From other sources, there are reports that Major Hasan had been under investigation for Internet posts related to suicide bombings. He is a US citizen, an American-born Muslim of Jordanian descent.
10:15 pm EST: “Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who allegedly killed 11 people before being shot and wounded by police at Fort Hood, had said Muslims should “rise up” and attack Americans in retaliation for the US war in Iraq, a former army colleague said.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html
11:26 pm EST: Troubling portrait emerges of shooting suspect: Walter Reed training director said Hasan required extra counseling
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33695256/ns/us_news-military/
opinions powered by SendLove.to
78 Responses to “Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX (UPDATES)”
And it was a good conservative reaction, full of thoughtfulness and insights…
Very, very slowly. Very, very painfully. And utterly and completely alone.
Have a good day.
Hasan is apparently alive after all. That is going to make this play out very differently now, I would think.
The photographs on that article you linked to are very moving. Upsetting, too. That first picture of the woman trying to contact her husband — breaks your heart.
I don't understand the bit about Hasan still being alive. I mean, the article headline says he was “wounded” but the text of the article refers to him in the past tense.
Very confusing.
I wouldn't have known.
The title is clearly not irresponsible. It's entirely appropriate.
Perhaps if one is totally ignorant of Islamic Jihad and their actions in the past few decades can one think that terrorism had nothing to do with this attack… those who pay attention know all to well that an attack like this is something they've wanted to do for a long time.
I'm glad hes' alive. That means he's still in pain.
In which case, I'll see what I can do about sending a few conservatives to hell… It's the least I can do for them…
Oh yes AR. Much differently.
Why is the headline of this entry “Possible Terrorist Attack at Fort Hood”? I heard no such speculation today. There was a shooting with multiple casualties at a military base. Bad enough news. But why the terrorism angle?
Check out the “Same Sex Marriage Rights” thread. He's back!
This guy is a medical doctor, a graduate from Virginia Tech, (of all places), a field grade military officer, a medical doctor Phd in medicine, and, licensed psychiatrist…..Muslim Convert.
The man killed and wounded, (I think), more soldiers in one day than our worst one day loss in all of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Either nobody picked up on the massive red flags flying over this screwball, which has got to be SOMEBODY’S incompetent negligence, or, our military is scraping bottom barrel when finding people to actually help our mentally ill military people.
I’d like to know how long this lunatic academic has actually been in the Army. More than likely he got a direct commission. Apparently he had never seen or even been close to combat. I find it difficult, not completely unbelievable, but difficult to believe that this man turned into a complete screwball after one year of listening to horrible stories from war veterans.
Then I think about a man educated to a lesser level of discipline, whom maybe having emotional trouble also. Maybe a little government hate going on inside excited by a little Beck or Limbaugh or whatever, another military officer, a pilot, a bomber pilot carrying a load of bombs to a bombing range somewhere in the U.S…..takes a little deviation and drops the ol’ bomb load over a major city…..starts screaming incoherent rants on the radio and crashes his bomber into who knows what mass of people….
I mean….what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???
“I mean….what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???”
Perhaps some reflection, more civil debate, less rhetoric. and less demonizing…by all sides?
Why whatever do you mean?
I made a perfectly resonable analogy. Considering the ever increasing violence we witness.
rhetoric?
Only a hate-filled moron or an ignoramus who has not kept up with the story at all would say something like that, Vince. Which one are you?
There is no terrorist connection. It is not part of any war. By the very definition of the word, the title is both irresponsible and playing on fears. At the very least, the title should be changed. It is shameful to continue to hawk fear and hatred in a time of horror and sadness.
Actually that's not accurate. The regulations on a military base for carrying weapons is quite similar to a college campus, and the soldiers are not walking around armed. The 'soldiers' who shot and wounded Hasan were first responders- basically law enforcement officials assigned to security patrol.
I don't know that the argument of allowing people to be armed in either situation holds water- but the fact is that in both situations the majority of the victims and potential victims were in the exact same situation, having had no choice but to be unarmed and to rely on security officials to protect them against the attack.
How do you define terrorism? Your comment about this not being part of any war is puzzling because reliable reports are that this shooter was at least in part motivated by his objection to the Iraq and Afghan wars. It's also not clear to me why a definition of terrorism would necessarily be related to a 'war'- isn't it true that instances like the shooting of abortionist Tiller are considered domestic terrorism? Or the Oklahoma City bombing?
I understand the concern that we not overstate this as the type of terrorism that is organized, state sponsored, or more coercive in nature. But I don't understand the overblown criticism of those who would use the word terrorism to describe it either.
Overgeneralizing is the problem. In the abortionist killing, there was legitimate concern expressed that the killer held an ideological belief that his action was heroic because he would prevent fetal deaths by killing Dr. Tiller- but anyone who overgeneralized to think that this was a widely held belief among abortion opponents, or that this idea would be sanctioned by most Christian groups, was wrong to do so. In the current instance, there's emerging evidence that the killer may have believed that he was acting heroically by killing soldiers who would be sent to kill Muslims- and again, we can and should acknowledge that a minority of people might believe that even while we take care not to paint most or all Muslims with that broad brush.
“what the hell can possibly be next after Ft. Hood???”
Another smaller event and place like the one in Arkansas some time ago? Don't people recall that?
[sigh]
Here, people:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/0…
Glad to see you CStanley. Really.
[...] Possible Terrorist Attack at Ft. Hood TX (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
Thanks…you too, Polimom.
The problem is over-sensationalizing things. It's very clear that this was the act of one very mentally disturbed individual. The writer was irresponsible to hype this as being connected with war or with terrorism.
[...] stupidity like this was the knee-jerk reaction of people who would style themselves as moderate. I’m sure every [...]
ThurmanHart, you're kind of wearing out the rug on this. The first reports on the story, if you'll look back at yesterday, were of several shooters. At one point, we were told that two were in custody and one was dead. I think the title was precisely right, given the early reporting, right down to the “possible” — which you seem to be consistently overlooking.
It was written at a point in time, with the current information, on a breaking story. Give it a rest already.
So sorry that insisting on honesty, facts, and good reporting is “wearing out the rug.” Publishing things comes along with a tiny bit of responsibility. Unfortunately, that seems to have been missed by a few people.
I'll give it a rest right after the families of the dead get over their soldiers being killed. Sorry if that is inconvenient.
Oh, hey, the “possible” thing. Well, it was “possible” that the Russians had invaded us, too. Why not put that in the title? The only thing that was known was that an attack had occurred, and the responsible way to report it would have been to say “an attack has occurred.” Why immediately go after terrorism? Why tag it as war? Oh, “possible.” Yeah. Well, not to worry then.
ThurmanHart, are you being deliberately obtuse? Seriously. Reports of several shooters, implying a coordinated event. On an Army base that deploys soldiers to two wars. And you ask why somebody might suspect possible terrorism?
Jeesum!
Serious. I'm being obtuse? Seriously. I understand fully well why someone might suspect terrorism. Everyone who spoke about it yesterday mentioned terrorism. It would be incomprehensible not to think about terrorism.
But this site led with a title claiming terrorism. Yes, I know – “possible.” Every responsible reporter said, “Nothing can be ruled out, not even terrorism.” This site leads with the idea it is terrorism. See – one way includes terrorism but urges caution because it isn't known. The other way heightens fear and urges people to be afraid. It's known as fear-mongering. I know you understand this, because I've read enough of your writing to know you do.
But I'm being obtuse? It is irresponsible to leave that title. Even Fox News knows when to issue a retraction.