News Fort Hood Report

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Again, I agree with this. One of the questions raised is if his dismissal from the army would
have been any good to prevent the killings, or would just accelerate the onset of events.
Fatalism is an immoral attitude.
Much like in Bishop case, when dismissal of tenure prompted her to execute those ppl.
Yeah, they deserved to die, didn't they?
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
This is your opinion ?
Certainly, it was their fate&destiny.

Just like her brother's "accident"
 
88
1
Certainly, it was their fate&destiny.

Just like her brother's "accident"
So you believe events are pre-determinate ? It's weird, but OK, it's your view of world.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
Sorry, I've neglected my own thread. I realize it is close to 3 weeks, but....
Which the president has done... is this the only way they are comparable? I do not see why the Presidents reaction and response to these events should be similar...
As an American, I want a President who keeps me safe from national security threats. Here I see one threat that he has chosen to face head-on and one that he has chosen to pretend doesn't exist.
No that's not what I'm saying at all. Reading what you've written though it is kind of clear that a majority of your dislike with how Obama handled the situation is his lack of calling it a terrorist act and 'taking it seriously'.
Two parts of the same thing, yes.
The attack at Ft. Hood was an isolated, individual event with no outside help and I do not think anyone should have jumped the gun on the situation.

I do not see what is wrong with the report that was released by the DoD, it addresses the problems and shows they are intending to fix them.
Those two sentences seem to contradict each other. The report says that signs were missed and/or not dealt with properly. It isn't "jumping the gun", it is properly addressing an obvious threat. And if it was isolated, there wouldn't be a good reason to change policy, would there?

The report paints a broad brush, and that brush captures other incidents. I don't know what "isolated" really means, but these incidents certainly aren't unique.

Here's one where a soldier murdered 5 comrades in Iraq: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051103143.html
Here's a case where a soldier rolled grenades into his comrades' tents, killing one and injuring 15: http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/20748/
This is what this report was INTENDED to do... it's not a report ON Ft. Hood at all, it's a report on what should be fixed now that a situation like this has come to light. This report goes to show that the event IS being taken seriously...
As I said, I didn't think that this report was too bad, per se. The bigger issue is the other report that we haven't seen yet: the report that actually is about the Ft. Hood incident itself.
I think I've found why you think the DoD report is the 'report on the Ft. Hood incident.
Actually, I don't. I explained that in the last paragraph of the first post. More importantly, my second post discusses *the other report* - the one we haven't seen - that is supposed to discuss the specifics of the Ft. Hood Incident. It is the lack of release of the other report that is far more troubling to me.
Yeah it is a good idea, that's why the FBI and the DoD looked into it. Their conclussion they came to through various methods was that the attack at Ft. Hood was an individual event related to no group. There are plenty of reports on this just search for Fort Hood in google.
That's quite a statement considering no such report has been released! Futhermore, it misses the point: the fact that he acted alone doesn't imply there aren't others out there who would also act alone and do the same thing!
 
Last edited:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
Finding 2.9 is a little disturbing:

It's tough to convince personnel that revealing any stress related problems about themselves won't have an adverse affect on their careers. In fact, it's tough to get some personnel to reveal temporary physical problems if it will cost them a few days flight pay. Military personnel aren't any different than the average person - they're intensely suspicious of having authority figures pry into their private lives and using that info to screw with them.

To say they should be disciplined enough to accept that as one of the conditions they agreed to makes a nice rhetorical statement. The reality is that members will hide problems as long as possible instead of getting counselling and/or treatment.
Yes, certainly soldiers are almost by definition not going to seek help when they need it. But I think a lot of the way around that is to provide mandatory, periodic counseling for those in combat both to help them deal with the stress and to identify people who may be in trouble.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
One of the questions raised is if his dismissal from the army would
have been any good to prevent the killings, or would just accelerate the onset of events.

Much like in Bishop case, when dismissal of tenure prompted her to execute those ppl.
It's a pickle, for sure, but someone who doen't belong in the military shouldn't be kept in the military and someone who doesn't deserve tenure shouldn't have tenure. Doing otherwise, we'd be letting violent people hold us hostage.

Ideally, Hasan should have been dismissed but provided with a tail and a wiretap (if not just arrested) after leaving the military.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
It's a pickle, for sure, but someone who doen't belong in the military shouldn't be kept in the military and someone who doesn't deserve tenure shouldn't have tenure. Doing otherwise, we'd be letting violent people hold us hostage..
In particular, especially if the army KNEW that Nidal Hasan would snap if dismissed, they should dismiss him immediately. Same in the Bishop case.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
253
727
We are not the only https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2561270&postcount=3" on the Obama administration.
WaPo said:
In a letter with the subpoenas, the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the FBI and Defense Department had ignored their requests for five months. The Nov. 5 shootings at the Texas base, the largest Army post in the United States, left 13 people dead
If this was a White House with a consistent history of taking its time and care about making public pronouncements for corrective action and laying blame regarding events entailing loss of life, perhaps I'd grant them some slack. But it is not that kind of beast. TEN DAYS after the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster Obama http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-mine-safety" [Broken] that condemned the mine company, called for the Justice Department to prosecute, called for sweeping federal re-investigations of mines across the country, called for new and stronger laws from Congress, on and on. Yes when private employers and businesses are the whipping boy, there's been no response to hasty for the Administration. But when the politically correct policies of the government itself may have contributed to the tragedy, apparent no amount of pleading will pry loose candid information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
We are not the only https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2561270&postcount=3" as to what the hell happened to a complete report on the Ft Hood shootings on November 5.
I saw the story too. What it said to me is that "a complete report" does not exist because this sobpoena is for specific bits and pieces of evidence, not a comprehensive report. That no comprehensive report was done is a travesty.

I want to know what, exactly happened and I want to know what, exactly is being done to keep it from happening again. That the government hasn't even done such an investigation is just an unacceptable level of indefference by our government to our security. And because of the stark difference in responses to the Ft. Hood incident and the Christmas bombing, I blame Obama personally. As I said before, he simply didn't take/treat the Ft. Hood incident seriously.
If this was a White House with a consistent history of taking its time and care about making public pronouncements for corrective action and laying blame regarding events entailing loss of life, perhaps I'd grant them some slack. But it is not that kind of beast. TEN DAYS after the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster Obama gave a speech that condemned the mine company, called for the Justice Department to prosecute, called for sweeping federal re-investigations of mines across the country, called for new and stronger laws from Congress, on and on. Yes when private employers and businesses are the whipping boy, there's been no response to hasty for the Administration. But when the politically correct policies of the government itself may have contributed to the tragedy, apparent no amount of pleading will pry loose candid information.
While I mostly agree with your assessment, the response to the Christmas day bombing attempt stands in stark contrast. Why? Two possible reasons, with the answer probably being a mixture of the two (and they are related anyway):
1. Dumbfoundingly inaccurate/biased reporting by the media on the Ft. Hood incident.
2. Public outcry over a particulary crass initial response by a member of Obama's administration in the Christmas day incident. Most certainly, the horrible reporting of the Ft. Hood incident by the media had a mitigating effect on the level of outcry about the failure of the gov't/military to deal properly with Hasan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mheslep

Gold Member
253
727
I saw the story too. What it said to me is that "a complete report" does not exist because this sobpoena is for specific bits and pieces of evidence, not a comprehensive report. That no comprehensive report was done is a travesty.

I want to know what, exactly happened and I want to know what, exactly is being done to keep it from happening again. That the government hasn't even done such an investigation is just an unacceptable level of indefference by our government to our security. And because of the stark difference in responses to the Ft. Hood incident and the Christmas bombing, I blame Obama personally. As I said before, he simply didn't take/treat the Ft. Hood incident seriously.
I agree.

In one of these stories, maybe one of your sources in the Feb posts, it was suggested that a complete report was indeed prepared for Obama within a month or two; if that's true then visibly the thing has never been released. An internal-only response would be better that none at all, but a) that's still far less effective than a public announcement to the FBI and military rank and file to change their way of doing business, and b) it still greatly irritates me that it is ok for the government to publicly condemn some mining company (perhaps deservedly) but not those that showed similar negligence leading to the Ft Hood shootings.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top