I had heard that this was in a part of the base where loaded weapons were not allowed. But whether those entering are physically searched for weapons, I don't know. I am willing to bet they rely on the "honor system" for ID'd military personnel.

Jared, good question. Some intrepid reporter needs to do some research. I do think this sort of thing did happen in the past.

Of course in this case, it wasn't some soldier in the battlefield, but a psychiatrist. Bizarre.

I know that around eighty years ago, a man went to a school house and bombed/burned schoolchildren with dynamite. Perhaps this sort of thing has been around forever. I don't know.

As far as solders of this generation being more susceptible to "snapping" or being mentally stressed, I'm not convinced of that.

I think it went on before, it was just less public. And it was less talked-about. Perhaps more "shameful". I'm pretty sure that there have been soldiers coming back from war mentally shattered, and live out the rest of their lives as alcholics, and troubled outsiders since at least the civil war.

I know that we do a lot more now than we used to, hence having psychiatrists working on army bases. In this case, a fact that is at once ironic, bizarre and tragic.

I wonder if the media saturation contributes to the perception it is more widespread. I know our culture "feels" kids are more at risk for kidnapping/molestation and such today, but I wonder if the stats are about the same as they were 50 years ago, the only difference being there wasn't 24/7 news in every home talking about it and creating the perception it's more widespread than it is.

I never watch the news. Except when I'm away from home or when someone is visiting. I'm not anti TV news; I just know it aggravates my spirit. It's not the news per se, but the way it's delivered.

Yesterday I was in the airport and CNN was on, covering the Fort Hood shootings. I know Wolf Blitzer can't have dead air when people are watching, but in the lack of updates, he just breathlessly rambled. LOTS of speculation. "I lived in Bethesda, and I've never heard of this medical school. I wonder if it doesn't exist." Then he goes on for 4 minutes asking everyone who's patched in if they've heard it exists, because he lived there and he never heard of it so he wonders if the shooter's transcripts are fabricated and what an angle on the story that would be and nobody knows and can somebody please get on that because he's certainly never of it

-- at this point I'm remembering why I never watch the news --

and he keeps going and going until finally somebody tells him in his ear that the school does exist and he goes, "Okay, we do know now that the school DOES in fact exist..."

As if this was a real bone of news contention and not something he just thought up to say because he hadn't heard of the school before. Suddenly whether the school existed was a hot news mystery.

It's that kind of thing that drives me nuts. In the absence of actual news, speculation becomes the news. They can't not have silence. They must hear themselves at all times.

And it makes me anxious and stressed.

OK, it's official. It's been around for as long as we have decent medical records. After Civil War they called it "Irritable Heart" or "Da Costa's Syndrome" or "Soldier's Heart." After World War I they called it "Shell Shock". After WWII they called it "Battle Fatigue". After Vietnam they called it "In-Country Syndrome". After Gulf War I, It was called "Gulf War Syndrome" and efforts to really deal with it stepped up. And that's where we came up with the current diagnosis of "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" or PTSD.

I've done a lot of study on it actually. And have attended some seminars taught by military chaplains. The purpose was training for disaster relief. A lot was learned about Post-Traumatic Stress after 9-11. The rescue workers there suffered from it big time. So did the rescue workers after Oklahoma City.

Check out this link -

Please read it, Jared. It's just a quick 19 slide powerpoint presentation. I think it answers your question about whether this generation of soldiers suffers from it more or less than others.

It seems to have been around for a long time. They just didn't know what to call it or what to do about it. I guess we still don't know. :(

My opinion???
First, let me say that I don't watch the news either. Too depressing. I heard about the shooting from someone on facebook.
Second, once I heard, I looked up the story, and turned on Fox a little this morning to hear about it. The guy was a psycologist dreading an overseas deployment??? Something just doesn't sound right. Like, was he trying to avoid the deployment by doing something minorly crazy that turned into massively tragic???

Third, do I even want to know??? I'm with ya, Phil, I think I've heard so much in the past 10 years that I've become non-reactionary. I don't get all excited about politics and stupid stuff those people do either anymore... I just expect it.
That's my problem... I EXPECT this stuff. Sad.

I didn't know about yesterday's shooting until my girls and I got on an airport shuttle. It was just the 3 of us plus the driver on an empty shuttle. And the driver goes, "Some guy killed 30 people in Fort Hood. Shot them."

I was shocked. But I was also shocked he'd say this in front of two little girls, like it was okay for them to hear. Weird.
I think nonstop news makes us less sensitive. ???

I guess I have a different take on your question: we're not numbed, but spoiled. America and much of western society is paradise compared to how people have lived throughout history and in many places in the modern world. We live cocooned from the realities of the violent depravities of the human condition. Violence, rape, murder, extortion, starvation, and all manner of hellishness is common throughout the third world and other questionable areas. Warlords can shoot up a cafe to kill an opponent; innocent victims, oh well. Whereas in America we expect justice, in many places under-funded, ineffective or corrupt "police" do just the opposite; something we only vaguely remember from the Klan-hooded cops of the old South. Most Americans (those who don't do business in foreign countries) have absolutely no idea the power and pervasiveness of ruthless organized crime throughout the world. And that doesn't even begin to address foreign corruption. Indeed the average world citizen has no hope of safety or justice (apart from justice in eternity) in the face of such endemic conditions. Whereas kidnapping in America is a CNN News Alert, in most foreign countries it's an industry and a daily ho-hum occurrence.

I say we're in a spoiled stupor of plentiful food, comfy SUV's, warm houses, free religion and reasonably trustworthy gov't. We ain't seen 'nuthin yet.

Philip, I am from Texas myself and have a pastor friend in copperas cove. I know all our prayers go out to all the survivors and the victims families. As a Pastor/Deputy Sheriff(bivo) I was a little concerned about comment #3. I'm sure you know Ft. Hood is one of the largest military bases in the world. Not just American, but the entire world. I'm sure we will learn more as the days come about what happened. However, I am proud of the reports I hear coming out of Ft. Hood. If our men and women had been armed this guy wouldn't have gotten very far at all. They were probably doing what they had been trained to do in a combat situation, and that was to seek cover in the event of a surprise attack. Then retaliate. One of the reports I saw on the news was that after the officer shot the suspect the soldiers responded to the wounded and dying. I am proud of our men and women there.
Not to mention; that if a person is willing to trade his life to kill others, then that person(s) is going to lose their life. I hope you don't feel like I am coming down on you, because that is not my purpose. I'm just guessing that our people in uniform acted admirably when attacked by a lunatic with firearms.

grace,
Jason

Jason D.,
Thank you for your comment and your service as a Deputy Sheriff. I apologize if what I said came across as criticism. It was more my own lack of understanding about such things. I'm probably too influenced by Hollywood - expecting a Chuck Norris/Bruce Willis type- to be among those present and able to take out the shooter with a pen and a paper clip.

I had heard about people using their own uniforms to patch up the wounded. I have no doubt there was much bravery and heroics.

God bless the soldiers, and also the brave female police officer who - from what I understand - wounded the assailant and was wounded herself in the firefight.

Opps - it was only 73 people (still a terrible number) and most of them were children. It took place on Christmas eve.

The story is in a book, "Death's Door" and

Woody Guthrie wrote and performed a song about it, you can read more and listen to it here

Oh...another oops...I had the Union/Company thing exactly opposite.

The photo from 1950 was after a renovation that included changing the doors. I was in Calumet a few weeks ago and the Italian Hall is no longer there and there is a lot that we'll never know - but if the doors opened outward, why were people not able to get out?

This is very sad.

I'm a nursing student currently. I live in Canada, so my take on much of this is from a very different place because our two cultures approach war differently.

Currently I'm taking a Psych Communications course. The instructor (3 PhD's and 2 Masters) is from Iraq originally, but is now a Canadian citizen. Through some honest and very interesting conversations with him, I have gained new perspective on these conflicts (I include the Gulf War as well) that I didn't really know existed.

In no way am I "sympathetic" (which I define as understanding motives and accepting reasons) to actions such as these. They are deplorable - if there were a stronger word, I would use it.

I do believe though, that a time is coming when America, and Canada, will need to look in the mirror and see what it is they have been doing in these nations. The history of involvement when it suits North American (mainly American) interests, and ONLY American interests, and the devastation that has resulted has bred entire generations that absolutely HATE America. This kind of thing is the tip of the iceberg, and there is a LOT more where that came from.

The American media is so controlled, and so manipulated, that if you as its citizens actually want news and perspective, you'd be better to use the internet and go to UK sites, or Canadian sites.

There is so much more to the conflict than what you may ever understand - unless you have the opportunity to sit with someone from that nation and listen, and be willing to hear the truth, about what has happened and IS happening there.

I don't condone the actions of this man. I never, ever will. But I also don't believe he's "crazy". I do believe he thinks along the lines of most Iraqi citizens who are sick, and ready to die, to rid their land of the self-interested meddling of American and British Imperialism. They don't see it as "murder" because in their eyes, what American and Canadian soldiers are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is NO different.

We must find some way to understand them. We cannot continue to fund "peace" at the end of a barrel of a gun. We will bankrupt ourselves, and continue to breed hatred while trying to bring what we are told they want. They have a different culture, and they do not want ours imposed upon them.

Cara,

Also, for a glimpse into the way at least some Iraqis view their situation, there are some good blogs out there, such as Iraq the Model (and a number of the blogs in their blogroll as well).

These two brave guys (Omar and Mohammed) have been blogging from early on in the war. I haven't read them in awhile, but they are pretty straightforward - you'll find fair criticism for the US, for the Iraqi government, but especially for the terrorists and other thugs (like Sadr and others) who continue to cause problems.

Annie/Wickle,

I realize Shrode used the term "self-appointed sleeper agent" in his post, but I don't think he was implying what you inferred. I understood "self-appointed" to mean working alone. And it's still too early to know this guy's full motivation.

There is no such thing as a lone Muslim acting criminally.

Sure there is. There have been several instances of that in the past few years.

But, of course, Christians are never responsible when someone uses our rhetoric to motivate criminal acts (like the murder of the man known as "Tiller the Killer"). That's completely different.

Are you kidding me? When that happened, the entire pro-life movement (which immediately and rightfully denounced the murder) was implicated by the national press.

Bill, thank you for your response to my post.

Please don't believe even for a moment that I in any way intend to reduce my argument to "America deserved it". I do think that "What a man sows, he reaps". Becoming involved in conflicts ensures that one will then have conflict visited upon them.

It is America's failure to "liberate" any nations that they do not have vested interests in that drives the skepticism and disbelief regarding America's "rights" to invade these nations. And that is how these people see the actions. It is what will motivate them to fight with any means possible. We would do the same were our nations invaded, and rightly so.

I agree that the conflicts go back (at least from what I recall from my conversations with Ali) at least more than one hundred years (and began with British Imperialism which he argued the US then adopted). I'm no history major - he carefully explained the history of the conflicts to me but I wish I had taken notes so I could remember more specifics.

My personal observations are that within less than one generation we have seen America back both Hussein and Bin Laden, and then turn around and denounce and destroy them when they no longer served American interests.

I won't say much more because I don't feel qualified to discuss history not having studied it in any very indepth ways. All I can say is that I really feel compelled to try to understand more about these nations; I have come to the realization that the values and the beliefs we have are shaped by the culture we live in. We consider them superior and make the assumption that because we desire these things, "they" must (should) as well. I do believe that is the smokescreen the governments use to get the civilian populations to back their actions - we believe we're bringing "liberation and democracy" without stopping to ask ourselves if the people we are trying to "help" even want these things. The governments are doing what they need to do to serve and protect interests that are not altruistic in the least.

Thank you for listening. Just my .02 :)

Hm. It's hard to have a conversation like this because my tone of voice is missing from the conversation and in "black and white" what I am saying seems to be coming across more harshly than I intend. I don't think were this conversation in person you would be wondering if I am somehow justifying what Hasan did. :) I'll try to be more clear.

In no way do I justify Hasan's action. It was treason - in the eyes of the military and in the eyes of any loyal American citizen. But perhaps not to Hasan. He seems to have put on the facade of citizenry, with the his allegiance being to his original culture.

I DO think this shows though how you can NOT remove the influences of culture simply by moving from one country to another and becoming a new "citizen". Who we are, our perceptions, our beliefs, our values are all indelibly the product of the culture in which we are raised - these things are not erased by virtue of formalized citizenship or the donning of a uniform.

I would like to know more about Hasan. Clearly, this man is an enigma - highly educated to know the psychology of trauma and to do counselling. There he was, operating within the military, fighting against the side to which he (at this point) seems to have allegiance . Why? Was he intentionally planting himself with this act of treason being his motive all along? Perhaps he was torn between allegiance to two countries; did the actions and responses of his fellow soldiers/commanders to his opinions regarding America's conflict with Iraq somehow alienate him and create the motivation for such a despicable and cowardly act? (Please do not read that as my accepting his actions, I'm just seeking to understand what he would consider his motivation)

I am working out for myself what I consider appropriate intervention. I find myself leaning more towards keeping our noses out of other countries' business. I know that is idealistic and never actually possible. I cannot help though, but dream that mutual understanding and respect for other's cultures (if not agreement with practices) would go much further towards creating peace than any invasion ever could.

Imagine if the money that went towards the military-industrial complex instead went towards Aid; not simply handouts but micro loans and education, clean water, and the creation of infrastructure that would allow self-sufficiency? It would change the world. In the process, it would create the kind of good will that would make dreams like democracy and the end of terrorism much more possible.

At this point, in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is setting up a government that IT has chosen, not necessarily the people. And it will have to support it for years... up until the point that a new President decides to go in a new direction. Lather, rinse, repeat. I find it incredibly sad. Thousands of lives wasted - American and Afghanistanian and Iraqi lives, and billions upon billions of dollars borrowed from future generation to accomplish what?

Please do not forget that this began over the assertion that Hussein had WMDs. It turns out he did not. The story that exists there is fascinating... I'll take some notes on Monday and post again with details. It was shocking, and not nearly so black-and-white as we were led to believe. The story of Bin Laden even more so. I find him reprehensible as well, but when another perspective is shown a new picture develops.

Finally, if you've managed to read this far I will share my opinion regarding the "honor killings". All I can think of regarding these types of events is "What, sir, would you expect to happen to your daughter when you immigrate to a new country?" It shows the failure to realize that culture will ALWAYS shape behavior exists on both sides - both Western and Eastern. And it is tragic.

I can only think that in terms of believing the Koran to be true, and in attempting to be a devoted Muslim, they are as sincere as we are in our attempting to be disciples of Christ. If it were not for the grace of God, there go I. Truly, aside from the Holy Spirit, were we born any place else on earth, we would follow the whatever the leading religion of the culture happened to be. For us, it is Christianity, for them it is Islam. In India, it is Hinduism, in Japan it is Shinto, etc, etc. That is why the command to go and preach the gospel is so urgent.

I don't know that discussing the merits of "culture" is as important as recognizing it's impact - and being certain to be humble in our assessments and remember that Christ called us to love one another. We cannot love if we cannot understand. We need the wisdom of God. For me, that is first admitting "I don't know".

Wickle,
I stipulate that there are idiots on both sides. Period. And let's leave that there. Otherwise, we get into measuring which side has more idiots than the other. There are plenty of examples on all sides.

Your last statement puzzles me though.
At some point, someone needs to look at the possibility that people are listening to this kind of rhetoric and take it seriously.

I'm going to assume that you don't really mean that. You are just expressing understandable frustration. Carried out to it's logical conclusions, that statement is scary. Who would do the looking? The government? The attorney general? The FBI? The media?

And then what? Start outlawing the "rhetoric"?

And people have been "looking at the possiblity". PBS's Frontline ran a special last year asserting that very thing. That the right wing talk shows result in right-wing fueled hate-crime. I found it pretty one-sided. But hey, that's just me. ;-)

"And then what? Start outlawing the "rhetoric"? "

Ummm ... no. I would have said "the government" if I'd meant that. I apologize for being unclear, though.

I mean that people should restrain our own tongues. I'll put my pro-life convictions up against anyone's, but I will not use language that makes it sound like I think it's okay to commit acts of violence.