Here is a list of ten famous people who died as a result of nicotine abuse:

Humphrey Bogart
Edward R. Murrow
Nat King Cole
George Harrison
John Huston
Noel Coward
Betty Grable
Walt Disney
Gary Cooper
Peter Jennings

Here is another list. Ten famous people who died from alcoholism:

Billie Holiday
Jack Kerouac
Truman Capote
Lorenz Hart
Veronica Lake
Bix Beiderbecke
Montgomery Clift
Dylan Thomas
John Barrymore
Errol Flynn

Now I’m going to ask you to name for me one celebrity who has died from too much grass.

Go on, I’m waiting. Is it a “gateway drug” as they never tire of reminding us? Yeah, it probably is. But so is Pabst Blue Ribbon. Let’s get a grip here.

http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY

[note: fished from spam filter. --Stashiu]

Yes and no. Yes, Major Hasan was insane judged by Western standards. His attack was incomprehensible given our concepts of right and wrong. Mass murder just isn’t the sort of thing normal people inflict on others.

But, it does occasionally happen, and when it does, we look for reasons why an otherwise rational person would do something so despicable. We search for a satisfactory explanation, “a grievance,” and if we can’t find one, we’re left to conclude the individual was obviously insane.

However, Major Hasan was a devout Muslim. His thinking and behavior was never subject to any conceptual framework other than one explicitly derived from the Koran. Islam isn’t the least bit ambiguous about the obligations of its adherents.

Hasan’s actions at Fort Hood are readily understood according to the precepts of Islam. Hasan wasn’t insane, he was a faithful Muslim acting exactly as his religion instructed. Hasan identified himself as a Soldier of Allah (SoA) and when he could no longer continue his “jihad of deception,” he embarked on a “jihad of the sword.”

Major Hasan wasn’t insane, he was doing what any faithful Muslim understands to be his obligation according to the highest authority of Islam, the Koran.

Just so we’re clear.

So are Peter Coors, August Busch IV, Jim Koch, etc..

Just so we’re clear.

How ’bout it Neil, did I come close?

Neil’s analysis? I’d give him a D minus.

“Insane” has both a legal and medical definition. Hasan does not appear to meet either one. His behavior was goal-oriented, planned, and organized, with full knowledge of the potential consequences (witness his money transfers and giving away his possessions), and evil… not insane. His method of attack was consistent with the precepts of his faith as he understood them and the teachings by a large number of clerics who follow his particular faith. That faith is the only major religion in the world which teaches these things as a matter of doctrine. It is not the faith of Christians and Jews.

I know you’re a drive-by, but someone should point out your idiocy and it was my turn. Enjoy your weekend.

HE WAS INSANE.

Did his religion contribute to the killings? Sure! If he was a fundamentalist Christian, could he have done it? Of course! Orthodox Jew? Why not? Insert-your-non-abrahamic-faith-here? It happens every day!

Sometimes, people do things because they’re not in the right mind. Going off the deep end of a particular religion certainly doesn’t help, but he could have been part of any faith and done the exact same thing (although you’d have to replace Allah Akbar with your religion’s version of “god is great”)

I would add one more point.

When these events occur, there is often a call to ‘not characterize all Muslims by the actions of the radicals.’

The problem is that the Ft. Hood killer wasn’t a radical. It is those who ignore aspects of the religion and live among the infidels in peace who are the radicals.

Yes, there are many different offshoots of the Muslim religion, but the Ft. Hood terrorist practiced wahhabism.

From this link.

Hasan’s imam Faizul Khan is no ordinary imam. He is on the Board of Directors of the ISNA, a radical Wahhabi outfit which “enforces extremist Wahhabi theological writ in America’s mosques.

This incident is an absolute FUBAR, and anyone who were alerted to the warnings and didn’t act should not work in government in any capacity again.

I dunno… to trivialize the discussion?

Not that the LA Times has trivialized itself or anything