Stephanopoulos on the "special challenge" of Muslims in the military: "This is not the first case we've seen of fratricide by someone with a Muslim background in the military"
November 08, 2009 11:42 am ET
From the November 8 edition of ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos:











Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Why is Rupert Murdoch so clueless about Fox News?
Media Matters: Dobbs, dropped



All those cases of fragging during the Vietnam War? All Muslims, obviously.
Isn't it time for Stephanopoulos to join Dobbs and Quinn and Hannity and all the rest in the building of a new Know-Nothing party already? This is getting sick.
What is erroneous about that satement? The "special challenge" is obvious here. Did that muslim major kill those young men because he didn't like their haircuts? Seriously, what do you think his motive was?
Seriously I don't know what his motive was. It may have been his crazy extreme Islamic beliefs, it could have been he was scared to go to the middle east, maybe he was plain mentally deranged.
There was Christain man in the military that killed 5 of his fellow army people. (Camp Liberty, May 2009). I don't know why he did it either. It could have been his crazy christian beliefs, or scared of what might happen in Iraq, or just plain mentally deranged.
The point most posters are trying to make here, is we as a society should not condemn a group, for something an individual does. It is just as stupid to blame all Muslims for this guys heinous deed, as it would be to blame all Christians for the guys heinous deed at Camp Liberty last May.
Now, if his religion had been something other than Muslim, and if he had yelled "God is Great" in English before shooting, an investigation would be called for. But this is clear as day to you, isn't it?
As for Stephanopoulos' second part of the question, this was a stupid statement. I don't know if he intend it to come out that way or if the question was just poorly worded. I must say though, that Gen. Casey handled that question very well, even if it was loaded question.
Guess those dog gone Christians need special attention too.
strictly speaking you have to be a real brother or sister. Brothers in Arms is just a movie. A better word would be "murder ".
But that aside, I do think the major point most are trying to make is that there are numerous examples of this type of situation, above and beyond religion or ethnicity.
Anybody remember the guy in Killeen (same town as Ft. Hood) running his vehcile into a Luby's cafeteria and gunning down 23 people? Maybe someone mentioned it before. If so, excuse me, I haven't kept up here as of late.
This story talks about lowering the recruiting bar to allow cat 4's in. Thanks, george, for that one...
Ohio is doing OK, we hit our 1st production marks last week which allowed us to hire two more folks. Now I'm getting ready to expand production again. I'm pretty tired all the time with these 7 day weeks of 12 hour days, but the pay is worth it. Couldn't have come at a better time too, I was down to my last thousand in the bank. So ha! In spite of their best efforts at destroying the middle class, I shake my fist and say ha! Missed me!
Saw the game too. I was the only aggie there, they still let me join them for a beer! ;)
Might as well tell me that when he's not beating his wife, he's actually a pretty nice husband.
While we are at it, maybe Dobbs and the boys want to start grilling the Hispanic named members to find out if they want Mexico to take back America. Maybe we should go after those that have died, a lot of Hispanic names are shown, and see if they deserve to be buried in Arlington.
And while these nutz are on their hunt, we can make rules that only Christians named personnel are permitted in the Armed Forces.
For example, Dobbs, Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney.
This Rightwing chatter about vetting these patriotic men and women prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that these cretins hate Americans while saying they love America.
Damn them all to hell.
How about those devout Christians? Should they get attention or do you believe a devout Christian is better than a devout Muslim?
To be fair, I think you should retract the "devout" to try to make your arguement.
See bintx below.
Oct. 27, 1995: Sgt. William Kreutzer went on shooting spree at Fort Bragg, killing one and injuring 18 in a sniper attack during formation.
That is actually the closest example to the Ft. Hood attack. It did not involve religion, and unlike "fragging" it was not merely an attack on a commanding or superior officer. It was attempted mass murder of soldiers. Kreutzer was mentally disturbed and warning signs of his meltdown were overlooked.
As you suggest, let's assume no precautionary steps were taken then to prevent future mass attacks. Or let's assume that precautionary steps were taken. Either way, where does that leave us today?
And now that it has happened again, yes, what do you tell the parents of the victims?
You seem hung up on the Muslim factor to the exclusion of all other possible factors that might motivate a soldier who resorts to mass murder. And you are arguing with anyone who proposes a comprehensive inquiry into the origins and motives in this case.
Is it not possible that it is too early to be drawing all sorts of conclusions: to be "armchair quarterbacking" a game that's barely started?
It is certainly getting attention now. Some people are now concerned with immediate and subsequent repercussions of that attention. It remains to be seen how the country and the military proceed from this point on.
The same thing, police officers and doctors tell parents, wives and children each and every second of the day...I'm sorry for your loss.
The killings at Ft. Hood were a tragedy, but it should not be used as a reason to treat thousands of honorable, law abiding, American loving Muslims, serving in the U.S. military, as if they've committed a crime, simply because they're Muslim.
Since the Vietnam War, Akbar was the first U.S. soldier to be charged with the murder of another soldier during wartime.
When the investigation of the Ft. Hood tragedy is concluded all knowable factors in Major Hasan's crime will be revealed. Current evidence indicates disturbing similarities to motivating factors uncovered in the Akbar case.
The military will have to take serious steps to resolve persistant problems such as that highlighted in the article I just quoted. Given recent reports of almost insurmountable Christian Fundalmentalist influence in the its command structure, there should be serious concern for the military's commitment to assimilate all religions into their ranks.
The morale of all combat troops may well depend upon enforcing religious tolerance as a cornerstone of training and deployment.
Sounds good until you consider that we have only been at war for around 3 months in total since the Vietnam War.
The military needs to take steps that this doesn't happen again. That is correct. Your point is unbelievable. You seem to be attempting to blame this tragedy on everything and everybody but the guy who done it. His actions are in no way justifiable. Period. Just because he was ridiculed by others for his religion does not give him the right to kill 12 people.
No, not my intention at all. There is no justification for murder, period. I am only addressing one probable shortcoming in the system that could 1)contribute to another murder or 2)make service for non-Christians more difficult than it is for anyone else.
I think promoting religious tolerance is a good thing in every situation. Would you agree with that?
I live in a predominantly military town, and from experience I have no respect for soldiers who spew hateful statements like, "We need to kill all the Muslims." Then, drunkingly continue on to call a man in the corner a 'faggot'. Then, inappropriately grab my friend's bottom before running out into the street and starting a fight with a group of men passing by.
I can only imagine how unbearable and awful the treatment of Muslims is in the army.
Spreading fear and stereotype. Great George! *Facepalm*