I smell rotten fishes in Forth Hood!

I'm not saying it hasn't been reported that way, but I haven't heard anyone say he shouted "God is Great". I also sure haven't see any evidence so far of anyone trying to "minimize the effects his muslim beliefs had on his behavior" and I've had it on that evil liberal MSNBC all day where they've reported everything he'd said and written in the past.

Are you implying this is somehow President Obama's fault? Also, what would you have wanted him to say, that this shooting by an obviously disturbed individual proves all Muslims are evil and out to kill Americans?

Annie

In some stories, they used the words "God is Great", however in several they said he shouted it "in Arabic". I watched some coverage live, but I generally scour the various news sources on the web so I have seen more than one network's coverage.

I didn't say Obama should have said anything else. What he probably should have done, rather than waiting for several hours after the shooting, and rather than addressing the tribal conference with light banter and giving a "shout out" to an attendee at the conference before making his statement, is that he should have given this very solemn news first place in his remarks rather than leaving them to the end.
That's like the doctor telling a joke to a patient's family to lighten the mood before announcing he's died of his illness. Just isn't seemly.

We all know the government will only tell us what they want us to know about any situation. Thus has it always been.

Rollo, as you, too, have noticed, there are too many ambiguity in the reports we are given. But as you and I very well know, any mention of the doctor's religious belief is in fact to instigate resentment towards Muslims (just as the 911 incident did).

Netsbridge, I have since discovered the possible source of the theatre story. Apparently the theatre is next door to the processing center where the shooting occurred. During the crisis, many ran into the theatre to warn them and some wounded were carried there by courageous people who pulled them from the building.

I do not believe that mentioning his religion is to instigate resentment towards Muslims. But if this man felt that his religion called for him to commit this act, then it is relevant even if he was mistaken in his belief. Those who committed the acts of 9/11 most assuredly did so because of a religious and political belief and devotion. There is no doubt of that.

Well, if you want to use that line of reasoning to open a can of worms, then be prepared to be judged by the same standard: We have had so-called Christians and cone heads kill and dehumanize people using the Bible as justification. In 2003, we had republicans claiming to be Christians lend support to W. Bush to unjustly invade Iraq, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of Iraqis and others and the almost complete meltdown of the US economy. Seeing all the above were committed by "Christians," should all Christians then be labeled evil and inhumane?

No one has labeled all of any group evil. However, you cannot deny that this man did what he did because he believed he should based on his religious beliefs. Trying to deny that fact does nothing. I realize that people are bemoaning the fact that he was Muslim, because they really don't want him to be. But facts are facts. There are more facts coming to light that indicate he intended this as an act of terrorism. He appears to have attempted to contact operatives of al Qaeda and he felt that suicidal acts were heroic. This has nothing to do with whether all Muslims are evil, and there is no report anywhere that says that nor is there any response here that says it. That this man did an evil deed, that he was Muslim and that he probably acted because of his beliefs are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Rollo, all I am saying is that the man ought to be judged by his own actions, whether driven by his religious beliefs or not. The fact that some one of a particular does somethibg bad does not necessarily mean that everyone of the same religion condones the act; a fact that we often tend to forget when it comes to Muslims! And as already mentioned, this is not the first time that people have committed atrocious acts in the name of religion and/or God: There are lots of religious ignoramuses of every religion out there.

Netsbridge...you are correct. All Muslims should not be judged by the actions of this man. But I agree with Rollo as well....it is unavoidable that he killed based on religious beliefs and sentiment. So, what is your conclusion?

I know what mine is. To be politically correct we have to NOT mention his being led to do this because of religious beliefs? So we sweep that under the rug and say he was merely a disturbed man? I guarantee you, if he'd killed an abortion doctor quoting New Testament scriptures...his beliefs and supposed motivation would be mentioned.

I noticed you brought up the thought that Christians are being blamed for the actions of a few....it is obvious to me that that is wrong to do so. Is it to you as well?

Very interesting article here, I encourage ALL to read it. In the shooters own words...long before he shot (now 14) dead: http://michellemalkin.com...

Taskr, the coverage of this started at about 2 in the afternoon yesterday and they DID say there were believed to be 3 shooters. First 2 and then 3 and they reported this on CNN, Fox and MSNBC because I was flipping around to make sure I was getting the latest information.

Annie

The early reports did speak of another shooting or shots fired in a theatre on Ft. Hood but they have never explained that report. They did stop reporting it at some point during the coverage. I don't know if someone made a mistaken report and they found nothing on investigation or if the news media just got it wrong.

Taskr36, every news source I saw and read on Thursday reported 3 shooters. I believe the doctor has been focused on because he was presumed dead (and they probably do not expect him to completely recover) and zeroing in on him gives war-lovers an easy excuse to continue selling their "war on terror" pitch.

True Taskr36, I am against the hypocrisy of the government, and have never tried to hide my opinion. And as per "don't give a crap about the innocent people who died," I think you are just full of your narrow-mindedness to have noticed I, without reserve, called the incident a tragedy.

Well one of the things I was hearing today is that army psychiatrists, odd as it may sound, don't go through the same psychological screening as soldiers. Either people don't think doctors can get sick, or since they aren't on the field they don't think that they're at risk for issues like this.

That's crazy! I mean, just as an oncologist isn't immune from getting cancer neither is a psychiatrist or psychologist immune from mental or emotional distress. They're trained to help other people but it's no doubt totally different when it happens to them.

Annie

Do not forget the fact that service people get their boost for performance from daily shots of adrenaline. And records show that people in the medical field are most often worse drug abusers.

I encourage you to read this article, in his own words and long before he shot (now up to 14) dead: http://michellemalkin.com...

Surely our president has been made aware of this (see above link) and yet, he still tells us not to jump to conclusions? We are going to politically correct ourselves into a very scary corner...if we don't wake up!

Debra, I followed that link and a few more on that page. He all but said**Hello, I'm a psychotic psychiatrist and I intend to kill people in the name of my religion. My twisted and warped logic has led me to the conclusion you all must die.**

I followed links a few pages deep when I saw the phrase that has made my eyes glaze over more than once about the reporting of this tragic event~*linked to 911 terrorists*. Well, of course he was linked to the 911 terrorists. He works for the US government. 'Nuff said about that.

As is to be expected, the feds deliver mainstream media partial half truths mixed with innuendo and a few complete lies to feed the Sheeples. I expect more and more constructed news to confuse and obscure whatever it is they DON'T want us to know. It's the way of it. So I'm always happy to find new sources digging for the truth.
Thanks for sharing the ones you find!

I was simply curious, as I still am, why of the then-mentioned "three shooters" only one was pictured. How did they come up with three if one shooter, regardless of weapon type, was doing all the shooting?

I don't find anything strange about it either. I noticed as I flipped between the three news networks how they seemed to be getting some of their information and video tapes from each other and they were all trying to be careful not to confirm something as fact before they knew it for sure. Even the Representative they were interviewing on a couple stations said his aide had been very near to the shootings and had said it sounded to him like a gun fight with several guns being discharged. I'm sure it seemed like there had to be more than one shooter and when a couple guys were taken for questioning that only added to that rumor.

I think all the reporters deserve kudos for doing their best with what they had to work with.

Annie

Exactly, anyone who's been in a situation where their lives were threatened or guns were fired would know that initial reports are influenced by stress and fear and bound to be inaccurate. When I was 18 the restaurant I worked at was robbed at gunpoint. Scary stuff and initially I told the cops I thought there were five guys with guns while a few hours later my mind had cleared and it was obvious to me there were only 3 guys. The brain does funny things in a crisis situation. The media was just doing the best they could before they got official statements from the military.

Okay, Spalladino, let's assume the number of shooters was simply hearsay mistake. Now, could you explain why in a military base filled with trained assassins, the doctor was not immediately stopped?

"Now, could you explain why in a military base filled with trained assassins, the doctor was not immediately stopped?"
As I THINK it was the base commander explained, that is their home and they don't walk around armed. The only ones who were armed were the security guards or police, whatever they're called there.

Annie

I agree with Annie, Nets. I used to have to go onto Andrews Air Force base regularly and the only armed personnel I saw were the guards at the gates. My husband who is a veteran told me that there are regulations dictating when you carry or wear a firearm on a military base. The facility where the attack happened had nothing to do with weapons training.

I am not buying! Too many discrepancies for this Thinker to buy.

Sid556, I am simply saying that the entire Fort Hood incident appears staged. Now, if someone can tell me why in a military base filled with trained assassins the doctor was not immediately stopped, then I will speculate differently.

I really don't know. I'm waiting to hear more of the story. I don't want to think what you are thinking so I hope you are wrong. I'm sure that everything happened very quickly and unexpectedly. I guess I'll just have to hear more details before forming an opinion.

Netsbridge, you will see what you want to see. You were told by a person who has been on a military base why there were no 'assinsins', as you call them, standing by to stop him.

I still say that these were trained assassins - trained in weaponries and hands maneuvers! Meanwhile, you may get in the waiting line behind me.

I think too many hostile acts are committed towards some people those places for various mean-spirited reasons. A Houston mother yesterday told on one Houston talk radio how her degreed son (also in Fort Hood) anguishes always because of the hostilities among the soldiers. You know, I am of the opinion that because there is bound to be conflict of interest, a non-national should never serve in the military of a nation.

No one is denying that he reported being harrassed for his religous beliefs. No one is denying that it must be very difficult to be a Muslim and facing being sent to Iraq or Afganistan. Everyone here, I believe lays fault on the higher ups as well as on the shooter. He showed many signs of becoming violent and nothing was done by his commanding officers to stop him. The problem within the military is that they HAVE to be politically correct. They cannot bring someone in and question them JUST because he is a Muslim or because he blogs about suicide bombers. We have the same problem with our police officers not being able to 'profile' or use their instincts to catch criminals. In a way it is good...or many of us would be at the station more than at work...lol. But we do have to get wise in this country about the threat to our safety from jihadists and terrorists. I thought the patriot act was suppose to cover this...but instead it is being used to label abortion apponents and veterans and anyone who disagrees with Obama as terrorists....and people die cause we won't say a word to offend. That is the problem, netsbridge.

I am Christian and know that if it were not for republicans claiming to be Christians we would not be in Iraq and would definitely not be not lamenting over the loss of our freedom to civil liberties and the loss of our rights to be able to manage our own personal affairs. We have had several so-called Christians kill abortion doctors in the name of Christianity. Were all Christians considered killers because of these few Christian religious ignoramuses?

Yeah, Nancy Pelosi and Obama think so...called us all Nazis. They even started keeping lists of dangerous conservatives. This shooter is in no danger of being railroaded netsbridge...our justice department has promised that all Muslims will be treated fairly. Even if they kill 14 innocent people. I say 14, because one victim was carrying an unborn child.